Invalidity dossier

US 10082359

Torque control system for cocking a crossbow

Current assignee: Ravin Crossbows LLC

Added 9/16/2026, 7:05:25 PM

At a glanceNo PTAB challengesNo litigation on file

Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash

Patent summary

Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.

✓ Generated

Patent Overview — US10082359B2

Title: Torque control system for cocking a crossbow

Patent number: US10082359B2 (application US15/395,705; pre-grant publication US20170108307A1)

Inventor: Craig Thomas Yehle

Assignee: Ravin Crossbows LLC (original assignee; current assignee listed as Ravin Crossbows LLC)

Key dates (as listed):

  • Priority date: 2013-12-16 (claimed from US14/107,058)
  • Additional priorities claimed: 2016-04-14 (US15/098,537); 2016-10-17 (US15/294,993)
  • Filing date: 2016-12-30
  • Publication date: 2018-09-25
  • Legal status: Active; adjusted expiration 2033-12-19 (status is an assumption, not a legal conclusion)

Purpose and plain-language scope:
The supplied text identifies the invention only by title, prior-art keywords, and bibliographic data. The prior-art keywords — "string," "cocking," "crossbow," "torque control," and "draw" — indicate the subject matter concerns controlling torque while drawing/cocking a crossbow string. Beyond this, the excerpt provides no abstract, no claims, and no written description, so the actual claimed scope cannot be stated from the supplied material.

What the excerpt does not establish:

  • Any claim language, claim scope, or claim count
  • The abstract, specification, drawings, or embodiments
  • Specific components, mechanisms, or methods of the torque control system
  • Any prior-art references or their content
  • Priority-chain details beyond the listed numbers and dates
  • Litigation, validity, enforceability, or ownership transfers

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US10082359](/patent/US10082359)/en (fetched 2026-09-16). This overview relies solely on the supplied patent text; omitted portions of the source were not consulted.

Generated 10/1/2026, 10:03:27 PM

Cases on file (0)

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 10082359. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Proceedings on file (0)

All PTAB activity →

AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.

PTAB challenges

AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Assignment history

Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Prior art

Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Obviousness

Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Extensions

Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.

Derivative works

Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.

Log in to generate
Not generated yet. Log in to request this analysis.