US 10753768

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any litigation or CAFC docket activity.

Let me do a few more targeted searches to check for litigation, PTAB, and CAFC activity specific to this patent.

Let me pull the actual claim set for US 10,753,768 specifically (the provided text was truncated before the claims).

US Patent 10,753,768 — Analyst Summary

Important scope note on what I could and could not verify. The authoritative full text you supplied is truncated immediately after the FIG. 2 discussion — it ends mid-sentence in the description and does not include the granted claim set. I therefore have high confidence in the bibliographic data (which comes from the Google Patents front page in your source and is corroborated by search results), but my claim-level summary below is derived from the published application US 2017/0328739 A1 (application 15/658,757, the same application that issued as US 10,753,768). Published claims frequently differ from granted claims, so treat the claim breakdown as provisional rather than authoritative.

Bibliographic data (high confidence)

Continuation chain (verified from the US 11,307,054 front page retrieved in search):
US 14/529,669 (filed Oct. 31, 2014 → US 9,823,092) → US 15/658,757 (→ US 10,753,768) → US 16/136,844 (→ US 10,753,769) → US 16/899,702 (→ US 11,307,054). The application states it is "[a] Continuation application and claims the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/529,669, filed on Oct. 31, 2014."

Abstract (verbatim)

"A magnetic field sensor has a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements and operates as a motion detector for sensing a rotation or other movement of a target object."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Based on the published application US 2017/0328739 A1 (see https://patents.justia.com/patent/20170328739), there appear to be two independent claims (claims 1 and 9):

Claim 1 — Apparatus, defined by physical geometry (not by a magnet).
The claim is drafted around an x-y-z coordinate system in which the target object moves in the x-z plane. It requires:

1. A substrate whose major planar surface is within about 20° of parallel to the x-z plane (i.e., the die is roughly edge-on/tangent to the target's path, not facing it);
2. Two magnetic field sensing elements on that surface, with major response axes parallel to the die surface and parallel to each other;
3. A line drawn through the two sensing elements that does not extend toward the target object (i.e., the two elements are arranged along a direction that runs parallel to the target's tangent, so the sensing axis is "along" rather than "across" the tooth pattern); and
4. An electronic circuit including a differential amplifier that takes the two magnetic field signals and produces an output indicative of the target's position.

Plainly: place a pair of in-plane sensing elements side-by-side on a substrate oriented edge-on to a gear, wire them into a differencing (bridge/differential) front end, and you get a compact edge/position detector that avoids needing a complex, expensive, cored magnet. Related dependent claims (2–8) add a magnet whose field is parallel to the die surface, an overlapping ("line perpendicular to the substrate intersects the target") configuration, a ring-magnet target, and specific element types (planar Hall, vertical Hall, magnetoresistance).

Claim 9 — Apparatus expressed in means-plus-function form.
This claim recites "means for receiving, within the magnetic field sensor, two magnetic field signals generated by two magnetic field sensing elements…" with the same geometric limitations as claim 1 (substrate within ~20° of the x-z plane; parallel, co-planar response axes; connecting line not directed toward the target). It is essentially the same inventive concept recast in §112(f) language, with a corresponding "means for" generating the output. Because it is means-plus-function, its scope is limited to the structures disclosed in the specification (e.g., the FIG. 5 bridge arrangement, and the FIG. 8/9 comparator, ADC, EEPROM/lookup-table channels) and equivalents.

Disclosed but not necessarily claimed: CVH sensing elements (FIG. 10), ring magnets (FIGS. 14–16), arc-arranged sensing elements (FIG. 16), and eddy-current sensing of a non-ferromagnetic conductive target.

Litigation / docket search — no CAFC 2026 activity found

I searched for USPTO and Federal Circuit 2026 docket activity tied to this specific number and found nothing attributable to US 10,753,768:

• No Federal Circuit appeal, no PTAB IPR/PGR, and no district court case referencing US 10,753,768 appeared in any result. Searches for 2026 Federal Circuit activity returned unrelated patents (e.g., a §101 dispute over US 7,679,637, and Rideshare Displays v. Lyft over US 9,892,637 and others) — I am deliberately not treating these as related, since the numbers are different.
• The only post-grant events I can confirm from the source are routine security-interest assignments (Credit Suisse, Oct. 1, 2020; Mizuho, Oct. 1, 2020; Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, June 22, 2023, with corresponding releases) and the maintenance-fee-driven adjusted expiration.

I cannot rule out litigation that is not well indexed by the sources available to me. If you need a definitive answer, the authoritative checks would be USPTO Patent Center / Assignment records for 15/658,757, the PACER docket for the relevant district, and the Federal Circuit's 2026 opinions and docket.

Number-confusion warning (per your strict-ID rule)

Search engines returned several hits for the literal string "10753768" that have nothing to do with this US patent, and I am flagging rather than reconciling them:

• EP application no. 10753768.0 — a Scania CV AB damping system for articulated vehicles (unrelated technology, different registry).
• DKPVS entry "10753768.0" — a Danish patent register record (unrelated).
• US 10,753,769 — a sibling continuation from the same family; adjacent number, distinct patent.

Also note US 10,753,768 is a continuation whose parent, US 9,823,092, issued Nov. 21, 2017 with 32 claims, and the later continuation US 11,307,054 issued Apr. 19, 2022 with 33 claims and is subject to a 82-day terminal disclaimer. If claim-count precision matters for your analysis, the granted claim set of US 10,753,768 should be pulled directly from the USPTO full-text/Patent Center rather than inferred from the pre-grant publication.

I'll search for litigation involving US 10753768 across patent litigation resources.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me check PTAB/IPR proceedings and major litigation databases directly.

Litigation Search: US Patent No. 10,753,768

Bottom line: I found no litigation — district court, Federal Circuit, ITC, or PTAB — involving U.S. Patent No. 10,753,768. Neither the patent number, its title ("Magnetic field sensor providing a movement detector"), its inventors (Paul A. David; William P. Taylor), nor its assignee (Allegro MicroSystems, LLC) returned any case hits in the sources I was able to search.

What the patent is (for identification purposes)

• Patent No.: US 10,753,768 B2
• Title: Magnetic field sensor providing a movement detector
• Assignee: Allegro MicroSystems, LLC (Worcester / Manchester, NH)
• Inventors: Paul A. David; William P. Taylor
• Application No.: 15/658,757; Filed: July 25, 2017 (continuation of Ser. No. 14/529,669, filed Oct. 31, 2014)
• Granted: August 25, 2020
• Status: Active, recorded adjusted expiration 2035-05-09 (per the Google Patents record)

Sources searched and results

Note: Do not confuse US 10,753,768 with the alphanumeric string "10753768.0," which is a European patent application number belonging to Scania CV AB for a "Damping System for Articulated Vehicle" (EP 2408657). That European application number is coincidentally identical in digits but has nothing to do with the Allegro US patent. I flag this because litigation searches on the bare string "10753768" surface that Scania/EP record rather than the US patent.

Important caveats

• My searches relied on public web indexing of patent-litigation aggregators (Unified Patents portal, Justia, CourtListener, Google Patents litigation tabs). I did not obtain a live, authoritative query of Docket Navigator, Lex Machina, or PACER, which are the definitive sources. A negative result from web indexing is not the same as a certified "no litigation" finding.
• Absence of litigation in my results is consistent with the profile of this patent (a continuation in a large Allegro sensor portfolio), but I cannot rule out recently filed or sealed actions.
• Allegro MicroSystems is a frequent patent plaintiff generally, so the absence of a hit for this specific patent should be verified directly.

Recommended verification steps (to confirm the null result)

1. Docket Navigator — search by patent number 10,753,768 (covers district court, ITC, and PTAB, including sealed/terminated cases).
2. Lex Machina — patent litigation module, exact patent number filter.
3. USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) API / E2E — search "10,753,768" for IPR/PGR.
4. PACER / CourtListener RECAP — docket search for "10,753,768".
5. USPTO Assignment records — to identify any transfers that could indicate enforcement activity by a non-Allegro party.

If you can confirm whether you want me to treat a paid database query as authorized, I can refine the search parameters (e.g., date range 2020–2026, assignee "Allegro MicroSystems") for that check. As of now, based on available public results, no litigation involving US 10,753,768 is known.

I'll verify the ODP "no proceedings" default against live sources before writing.

Let me run a few more targeted checks for any AIA proceedings, including on the patent's family members and against Allegro sensor patents generally.

One more check on litigation/ITC context and any appeal routed through the Federal Circuit, to be sure nothing is missed.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,753,768: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO Open Data Portal) returns no IPRs, PGRs, or CBMs — so there is no active/claims-invalidated/claims-sustained/settled/institution-denied breakdown to report — and my independent web checks surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent. Bottom line for a defendant: there is no IPR road map to borrow and no petitioner estoppel to hide behind, but also no claim has been canceled — every claim of this patent is UNTESTED at the PTAB and the patent stands exactly as issued.

I want to be precise about the limits of this answer, because "no PTAB activity" is a negative finding and negatives are easy to get wrong:

• Checked via the authoritative source. The ODP structured block in this prompt is the canonical list; it reports nothing.
• Checked via web search: queries for the patent number paired with "IPR," "PTAB," "petition," and "Allegro," plus searches for Allegro MicroSystems AIA petitions generally and for PTAB E2E trial-proceeding records. Nothing returned matched US 10,753,768. Search hits that looked like matches were false positives on different patents (e.g., IPR2025-00794, Intel Corp. v. Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc., concerns U.S. Patent 10,333,768 — a different patent with a superficially similar number; and U.S. Patent 10,347,682 in IPR2025-00064). I have deliberately not carried any of those into this report.
• Not fully exhausted: my search budget ran out before I could pull docket-level records from PTAB E2E and CourtListener directly, and before I could verify whether any related patent in this family has drawn a petition. Treat the zero as a strong but not court-certified negative — see "Recommended next steps."

No proceedings to report

There is no proceeding to fill in the per-case template (number, petitioner, panel, grounds, institution date, FWD, settlement, appeal). Per the operating rules, I will not invent proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions to populate it.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All claims of US 10,753,768 are untested — none canceled, none sustained, none amended. The patent issued 2020-08-25, claims priority to 2014-10-31 (continuation of U.S. App. Ser. No. 14/529,669, filed 2014-10-31), is currently Active with an adjusted expiration of 2035-05-09, and is assigned to Allegro MicroSystems, LLC (Manchester, NH). Because there is no FWD, there is no claim-level disposition on which a defendant can hang a "this claim is already dead" argument. Any demand letter or complaint asserting the claims is asserting claims that have never been adjudicated by the Board.

Estoppel landscape. With no IPR having reached a Final Written Decision, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel has attached to anyone as to this patent. That cuts both ways for a defendant:

• Available to you: the entire universe of prior art — patents, printed publications, and (in district court) system-art and § 112 grounds — remains fair game, including art already before the examiner and art that was never searched. There is no petitioner whose prior IPR channels your case.
• Risk you create: if you file an IPR and it reaches an FWD, § 315(e)(2) will bar you and your privies from asserting in the co-pending civil action or ITC proceeding any invalidity ground you raised or reasonably could have raised in that IPR. Given a single-petition, single-patent posture, think hard before filing a thin petition — a loss plus estoppel is the worst combination. Also mind the § 315(b) one-year clock running from service of an infringement complaint.

Pattern signals. There is no serial-petitioner pattern (no petitioner has filed once, let alone multiple times), no evidence of aggressive Patent Owner PTAB-appeal activity on this patent (nothing to appeal), and no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the chain that I could find. The operative context is instead a large, active Allegro MicroSystems magnetic-sensor portfolio: this patent sits in a family that includes at least US 10,753,769 B2 (App. Ser. No. 16/136,844) and US 11,307,054 B2 (App. Ser. No. 16/899,702), both claiming priority through the same 2014-10-31 family. A challenger evaluating freedom-to-operate should scope the whole family, not just this member — and should expect that if one member is petitioned, the Patent Owner may respond across the family.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant being asserted against US 10,753,768 today:

• Do not represent to a court or client that any claim is invalidated. There is no FWD to link. Any statement that "claims X have been canceled" would be false as to this patent.
• Verify the negative directly before you rely on it. Pull the patent's trial history on USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and Patent Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov), and re-run the ODP query, because the ingest feeding the structured block can lag recently filed petitions. Check the family members as well — at minimum US 10,753,769 and US 11,307,054, and the parent application Ser. No. 14/529,669.
• Independently confirm there is no Federal Circuit appeal. With no FWD there can be no PTAB appeal, but if an IPR surfaces, check CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com) and the Federal Circuit docket for the case number and disposition.
• Treat the absence of IPRs as a timing/strategy signal, not a validity opinion. Well-asserted operating-company sensor patents frequently do attract IPRs; that this one has not suggests either limited assertion activity to date or that accused parties have chosen other defenses. It tells you nothing about the strength of any particular ground.
• If you are contemplating an IPR, budget the discretionary-denial environment. As of the material surfaced in this research, the Director's February 28, 2025 rescission of the Fintiv-limiting 2022 memorandum restored Fintiv-style § 314(a) discretion (see Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB 2020-03-20) (precedential)), and further restrictions on institution were proposed in October 2025. These are general PTAB-environment points, not statements about this patent — confirm current practice before filing.
• Pin the priority/filing dates. With a 2014-10-31 priority date and a 2035-05-09 adjusted expiration, the prior-art window for § 102/§ 103 purposes is bounded by the 2014 priority; any art dated after that date is not prior art absent a successful priority challenge (which is a § 112/priority argument you cannot raise in an IPR and would have to preserve for district court).

Citations / sources for the above:

• US 10,753,768 B2 bibliographic and status data — https://patents.google.com/patent/US10753768/en (issuance 2020-08-25; priority 2014-10-31; status Active, adjusted expiration 2035-05-09; assignee Allegro MicroSystems, LLC).
• USPTO PTAB decisions and E2E — https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/decisions and https://ptab.uspto.gov.
• CourtListener — https://www.courtlistener.com.

Caveat, plainly stated: I could not, within the tools available here, run an exhaustive docket-level confirmation across PTAB E2E and CourtListener, nor confirm the litigation posture of the current assignee. The finding of zero AIA proceedings rests on the ODP structured block plus the web checks described above. If you are relying on this for a filing or a client opinion, verify on E2E first — and if a proceeding turns up, the per-case template above should be filled in with its petition number, panel, grounds, institution decision, FWD claim-level verdict, and any appeal disposition.

I'll reconstruct the assignment chain from the authoritative patent record and cross-check with live sources.

Let me try to pin down the specific reel/frame numbers for the recorded security agreements and the original assignment.

Found the Morgan Stanley reel/frame. Let me pin down the original 2017 assignment reel/frame.

Assignment & Ownership Chain — US 10,753,768 B2

Scope note on sources. I could not execute a live query against Assignment Center / assignment.uspto.gov (the interface was not reachable in this session). The reconstruction below is grounded in (a) the USPTO-derived legal-events record for US 10,753,768 reproduced in the authoritative patent text, (b) the reel/frame citations that the patent's own release events disclose, (c) a Google/Dimensions record confirming the same security-agreement recording on a sibling Allegro patent, and (d) SEC filings (Allegro 10-K / 8-K credit agreements). Where a field (notably the original-assignment reel/frame and correspondent) was not retrievable, I say so rather than guess. No item below is invented.

Inventors

• Both are career Allegro magnetic-sensor engineers and appear together on numerous Allegro filings (e.g., WO 2009/002679; EP2817647 "Magnetic field sensor" lists Taylor and David; the Radarídis inventor index shows both with Allegro MicroSystems, LLC as assignee). There is no indication either inventor departed Allegro, and no post-filing assignment by either inventor to a third party.
• Unusual-pattern check: negative. There is no evidence of inventor departure, no "all inventors left within 12 months" pattern, and no inventor-to-NPE conveyance. The single inventor→company assignment executed just after filing (below) is the standard employment/invention-assignment instrument.

⚠️ Contradiction check vs. prior section: none. The earlier litigation summary identified the same two inventors and the same assignee; nothing here conflicts.

Original assignee

Allegro MicroSystems, LLC — the entity named on the issued patent and the record assignee.

• Primary business: fabless designer/manufacturer of magnetic sensor ICs and power-management ICs, predominantly automotive and industrial. Parent is Allegro MicroSystems, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALGM), 955 Perimeter Road, Manchester, NH (formerly Worcester, MA). Majority-controlled by Sanken Electric Co., Ltd.
• Does it ship products embodying the claims? Yes — with high confidence. The claimed subject matter (plural magnetic-field sensing elements on a substrate sensing a moving ferromagnetic target; edge/feature/TPOS detection; CVH angle sensing) is the core of Allegro's commercial gear-tooth, speed, and angle sensor IC line. The patent's own specification frames the invention around production gear-tooth-sensor applications (ignition timing, ABS, wheel speed), and Allegro's prospectus/10-K describe exactly this product family as its market leadership segment.
• Current status: Operating. Allegro MicroSystems, Inc. IPO'd in October 2020 (NASDAQ: ALGM) and remains an active public operating company. It is also an active asserting patent plaintiff generally — but per the prior section, no suit naming this patent was found. Allegro acquired Crocus Technology International Corp. on 2023-10-31 (~$412.3M), showing ongoing M&A activity, not distress.
• Corporate nuance to note (not a finding of anything adverse): the patent is held by the LLC (Allegro MicroSystems, LLC), a subsidiary, while the Inc. is the SEC-reporting parent and borrower under the credit facilities below. The LLC-vs-Inc. distinction here is ordinary subsidiary structuring, not an NPE shell pattern.

Assignment timeline

Chronological. Ownership-relevant transfers are the first entry; the remaining entries are security interests and their releases (liens, not conveyances of title).

• Executed on/about 2017-07-25 / recorded 2017-07-27 — Reel/Frame not captured (field not retrievable in this session)

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (original employment/invention assignment)
  • Assignor: DAVID, PAUL A. and TAYLOR, WILLIAM P. (joint)
  • Assignee: ALLEGRO MICROSYSTEMS, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved — flag for verification. (This is the one field most worth pulling from Assignment Center directly.)
  • Context: Original assignment — inventors convey to employer/assignee; establishes clean chain of title.

• Executed 2020-09-30 / recorded 2020-10-01 — Reel 053957/Frame 0874

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement (grant of security interest)
  • Assignor: ALLEGRO MICROSYSTEMS, LLC
  • Assignee: CREDIT SUISSE AG, CAYMAN ISLANDS BRANCH, as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (the underlying 2020 term-loan facility names Davis Polk & Wardwell as agent-side counsel and Latham & Watkins as borrower counsel; the recording correspondent was not confirmed).
  • Context: Securitization — collateral for Allegro's 2020 term-loan facility, not an ownership transfer.

• Executed 2020-09-30 / recorded 2020-10-01 — Reel 053957/Frame 0620

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement (grant of security interest)
  • Assignor: ALLEGRO MICROSYSTEMS, LLC
  • Assignee: MIZUHO BANK, LTD., as Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (Davis Polk & Wardwell appears as Mizuho's counsel in the revolving-facility documents).
  • Context: Securitization — collateral for the 2020 revolving facility.

• Executed 2023-06-21 / recorded 2023-06-22 — Reel 064068/Frame 0459

  • Conveyance: Patent Security Agreement (grant of security interest)
  • Assignor: ALLEGRO MICROSYSTEMS, LLC
  • Assignee: MORGAN STANLEY SENIOR FUNDING, INC., as the Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. (Reel/frame confirmed on the parallel recording for sibling Allegro patent US 12,140,646 B2 — same security agreement, effective 2023-06-21.)
  • Context: Securitization / refinancing — collateral for the 2023 credit agreement that replaced the Credit Suisse/Mizuho facilities.

• Recorded 2023-06-22 — Reel 053957/Frame 0620 (release of the above grant)

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: MIZUHO BANK, LTD., as Collateral Agent
  • Assignee: ALLEGRO MICROSYSTEMS, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: Lien release on refinancing — Mizuho collateral position extinguished when the 2023 facility closed.

• Recorded 2023-11-01 — Reel 053957/Frame 0874 (release of the above grant)

  • Conveyance: Release of Security Interest in Patents
  • Assignor: CREDIT SUISSE AG, CAYMAN ISLANDS BRANCH, as Collateral Agent
  • Assignee: ALLEGRO MICROSYSTEMS, LLC
  • Correspondent: not retrieved.
  • Context: Lien release on refinancing — Credit Suisse collateral position extinguished.

Family / priority events (not assignments, but relevant to the ownership chain): continuation application 16/136,844 was filed 2018-09-20 (→ US 10,753,769 B2) and continuation 16/899,702 on 2020-06-12 (→ US 11,307,054 B2). These are separate patents within the same Allegro family and are not assignments of US 10,753,768.

Net ownership effect: after the 2023 releases, the sole recorded owner is again Allegro MicroSystems, LLC, subject only to the Morgan Stanley collateral security interest (Reel 064068/0459).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10753768
    2014 : Priority application filed
    2017 : Inventors assign to Allegro MicroSystems LLC
    2018 : Sibling continuation filed
    2020 : Patent granted
         : Security interest to Credit Suisse
         : Security interest to Mizuho Bank
    2023 : Morgan Stanley becomes collateral agent
         : Mizuho security interest released
         : Credit Suisse security interest released

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No post-issuance ownership transfer exists. The only recorded assignee throughout is Allegro MicroSystems, LLC, an operating manufacturer (Reels 053957/0620, 053957/0874, 064068/0459 are security instruments naming Allegro as assignor/pledgor, not title conveyances). No "IP/Holdings/Ventures" successor, no registered-agent address, no single-purpose LLC.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the assignor, the assignee, nor either collateral agent (Credit Suisse, Mizuho, Morgan Stanley) matches any NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Pendrell, Round Rock, Spangenberg entities, etc.). The banks appear only as secured lenders.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not determinable. The correspondent-of-record field was not retrievable for any recording in this session; I will not infer one. I note only that the debtor-side credit documentation was handled by Latham & Watkins LLP and the agent-side by Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP — but that is counsel in the loan agreements, not confirmed as the Assignment Center recording correspondents, and neither is on any NPE-assertion counsel list. Verify directly before relying on this signal.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. There are no chained LLC-to-LLC transfers. The only repeated reel (053957) carries two security grants to two different lenders on the same day plus their later releases — a financing structure, not an assignment cascade. No sub-24-month chain of title conveyances exists.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming this patent was found (consistent with the prior litigation section), and the most recent ownership-adjacent event (2023 releases) precedes no identified suit. The 2017 assignment predates the 2020 grant by three years — normal prosecution timing.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Allegro has never filed for bankruptcy; it is an active NASDAQ-listed registrant and an acquirer (Crocus, 2023-10-31). The security agreements are ordinary secured financing, and both 2020 liens were affirmatively released in 2023 (Reels 053957/0620; 053957/0874).

7. Privateering — not present. No transfer to a third-party asserter on Allegro's behalf appears anywhere in the record.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at the original operating company (Allegro MicroSystems, LLC), not at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Recurring correspondents flagged: none identified — the field could not be populated from available sources. (This is a gap, not an affirmative negative.)

Verdict

Operating-company assertion (ownership prong satisfied; assertion prong currently unproven).

Justification: The chain contains no title conveyance beyond the original 2017-07-27 assignment from David and Taylor to Allegro MicroSystems, LLC; every later recording (Reels 053957/0620 and 053957/0874, both 2020-10-01, and Reel 064068/0459, 2023-06-22) is a security interest in favor of a bank, and the two 2020 grants were affirmatively released (2023-06-22 and 2023-11-01), leaving Allegro as sole owner. Allegro is an operating manufacturer (NASDAQ: ALGM) that ships magnetic sensor ICs embodying the claims, so none of the NPE signals are present. The "assertion" prong is not established — I found no litigation naming this patent — so this is best characterized as a clean, non-NPE operating-company ownership chain, currently non-asserting for this patent.

Caveats: (1) The original-assignment reel/frame and all correspondent fields were not retrievable in this session; (2) I did not obtain a live Assignment Center/Docket Navigator/Lex Machina query, so a recently recorded or sealed event cannot be excluded.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10,753,768) and the public mirror https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

I'll search for the patent's cited references (the "Patent Citations" section) and related prior-art information.

Let me look for the specific "References Cited" (patent citations) list on the Google Patents and USPTO pages.

Let me get the actual "Patent Citations" (references cited) list for US 10,753,768 specifically.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,753,768

Sourcing note (read first)

You asked me to pull the citations for 10,753,768 specifically. Here is exactly what I was and was not able to retrieve, so the analysis below is honestly scoped:

Consequence: I can give you, with high confidence, (a) the references the '768 specification expressly incorporates by reference, and (b) the "(56) References Cited" set that is shared across the same-specification family (of which '768 is a member). I could not isolate an examiner-citation list unique to 10,753,768. I will not fabricate one. Everything below is labeled by source, and the § 102 mapping is provisional because I did not obtain the verbatim granted claim set of '768 (only the "useful for understanding an aspect" summary language is in the authoritative excerpt).

1. The '768 claimed subject matter I am mapping against

From the authoritative excerpt:

• Abstract: "A magnetic field sensor has a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements and operates as a motion detector for sensing a rotation or other movement of a target object."
• Summary (the only claim-like language given): a magnetic field sensor for measuring movement of a target object, movement in an x-z plane, a tangent to the direction of movement substantially parallel to the x axis, comprising: a substrate having a major planar surface within about twenty degrees of parallel to the x-z plane; and a plurality of magnetic field sensing elements disposed on that surface, each with a major response axis substantially parallel to the major planar surface, generating a plurality of magnetic field signals.

Because the granted claims are not in the excerpt, the § 102 column refers to claim 1 (independent claim) generically, and I flag where anticipation depends on dependent-claim features I cannot verify.

2. References cited in the '768 specification (highest confidence — these are unquestionably part of this patent)

3. "(56) References Cited" set shared across the same-specification family

The following are drawn from the face of US 9,823,090 B2 (sibling, same specification/priority) and the PubChem consolidated citation list for US-11307054-B2 (same specification). Because '768 shares that specification and priority chain, this is the most probable superset of the examiner citations applied to '768 — but I cannot certify it is identical.

Foreign patent documents cited (from sibling face): CH 683 469 A5 (1994); DE 25 18 054 (1976).

Most likely-relevant U.S. patent references (selection from the family (56) list; dates as published on the references):

4. Honest § 102 assessment

Bottom line: Based on the sources I could retrieve, none of these references is a clean, single-reference (§ 102) anticipation of the '768 sensor-arrangement claims. The references divide into two classes:

1. Signal-processing prior art (US 6,525,531; US 7,362,094) — discloses how to compare a magnetic-field signal to a threshold, and TPOS/precision-rotation channels. Anticipates no claim reciting the physical substrate/response-axis arrangement, but is highly relevant to any dependent claim reciting a comparator, threshold, or TPOS/precision-rotation channel.
2. Magnet/sensing-structure prior art (US 6,278,269; US 5,781,005; US 4,048,670; US 4,188,605; US 5,789,915; US 5,694,038; US 5,712,562) — discloses back-bias magnets with cores and differential sensing of a rotating ferromagnetic target. These are the closest structural art and are the natural § 103 combination (e.g., a differential gear-tooth sensor + an in-plane-axis MR/Hall element arrangement).

Because the distinguishing feature of '768 (per the only claim-like language available) is the orientation constraint — a substrate major surface within ~20° of parallel to the target's x-z plane and sensing elements with in-plane major response axes — any true § 102 reference would have to disclose that geometry in a single document. I did not find such a single reference in the retrievable citation set; on the face of it the art teaches combining differential/edge detection with in-plane-axis elements, which is an obviousness (§ 103) argument rather than anticipation.

5. Caveats and what I could not confirm

1. I did not obtain the examiner's citation list for 10,753,768 itself. The authoritative Google Patents excerpt omits the (56) field. The list in §3 is a family-level proxy, explicitly flagged as such.
2. I did not obtain the verbatim granted claims of '768, so the "claim(s)" column cannot be pinned to specific numbered claims. The mapping in §2–§4 uses the "useful for understanding an aspect" summary language as a stand-in for independent claim 1.
3. Do not confuse this with the forward (later) citations — e.g., US 10,753,769; US 11,307,054; US 10,837,800; TDK's US 10,168,395; and the various Infineon/TDK/Micronas documents shown in the "Cited By" output. Those post-date the 2014-10-31 priority date and are not § 102 prior art against '768.
4. The Scania/EP 2408657 "10753768.0" collision noted in the litigation section still applies here: a bare-string search on "10753768" can surface unrelated records; I filtered those out.

To make this a certified prior-art opinion I would need: (a) the USPTO PatentCenter document list / "(56) References Cited" for application 15/658,757, and (b) the granted claim set. If you can authorize and supply either, I will produce a claim-chart-grade § 102/§ 103 mapping.

I'll pull the granted claim set and the prior-art references cited on the face of this patent before doing the §103 analysis.

Let me pull the front-page "References Cited" from the granted patent PDF and hunt for the closest two-element differencing gear-sensor prior art.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,753,768 B2

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (AIA)

0. What I am working from, and two contradictions to flag

Sources actually available to me. The authoritative full text in the record is truncated in the middle of the FIG. 2 description and contains no granted claim set. To supply claim language I retrieved the granted first claim from RPX Insight, https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US10753768B2](/patent/US10753768B2), and the published claim set from the pre-grant publication US 2017/0328739 A1 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170328739A1/en, "Claims (24)"). Everything below about the granted claim scope beyond claim 1 is inference and is labeled as such.

Contradiction #1 (material to this analysis). The previously generated Patent Summary states that the independent claim requires "a line drawn through the two sensing elements that does not extend toward the target object." That is the published claim 1 limitation ("a line passing through the two magnetic field sensing elements not extending in a direction toward the target object"). The granted claim 1 (per RPX) does not contain that phrase. Instead it recites: "a line passing through any two of the plurality of magnetic field sensing elements not intersecting the target object … wherein the major planar surface of the substrate overlaps the target object such that a line perpendicular to the major planar surface of the substrate, within twenty degrees of parallel to an axis of rotation of the target object, and passing through at least one of the two magnetic field sensing elements intersects the target object, and a line parallel to the major planar surface of the substrate is in a direction toward the target object." The granted claim is therefore drawn to the FIGS. 12–13 "overlap" embodiment (sensor die positioned so the magnetic field sensing elements lie over/under the sensed object), which the published claim 1 arguably excluded. This changes the §103 attack: the granted claim adds a placement limitation (die overlapping the target) and drops the "not toward the target" language. I treat the RPX text as the operative claim but note it is unverified against USPTO full-text/Patent Center.

Contradiction #2. Google Patents (the authoritative source for this exercise) records the adjusted expiration as 2035-05-09; Patents-Review.com records "Adjusted expiration: 2038-01-31" for the same document. Per the operating rule I take the Google Patents date as ground truth and flag the other as an unreconciled conflict.

Contradiction #3 (minor). The earlier summary described claim 9 as means-plus-function based on the published application. I cannot confirm the granted claim 9 recites "means for …, " and I do not rely on that characterization below.

No adjudicative record exists. As the prior Litigation Summary found, no district court action, ITC action, PTAB IPR/PGR, or Federal Circuit appeal involving US 10,753,768 appears in the searchable record. There is therefore no PTAB or court claim construction, and no institution decision applying § 103 to these claims. Every combination below is my own construction-based analysis, not a restatement of an adjudicated holding.

1. The claim to be analyzed — granted claim 1, element chart

Claim text as retrieved from RPX (quoted, not paraphrased, for the critical clauses):

Construction notes relevant to obviousness.

• 1.2 and 1.8 are angular tolerance recitations (±20°). They signal a design/placement choice rather than a critical numerical limit — the classic fact pattern for an obviousness conclusion (no criticality, no unexpected result). See MPEP § 2144.04 (design choice / obvious to try) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
• 1.5 and 1.8 are mutually consistent (the in-plane line joining the two elements runs parallel to the target's tangent and misses the gear; the die nevertheless extends over the gear). The apparent tension between them is resolved once one recognizes they describe different geometric lines. This is worth stating because a too-literal reading ("a line parallel to the surface is in a direction toward the target") produces an ambiguous, arguably indefinite recitation — a construction fight that would matter in an IPR.
• The claim is apparatus-only and is not tied to any particular magnet. That matters: the specification's stated advantage (lower-cost magnet) is not claimed, which strips the patentee of the "technological improvement" narrative as an objective-indicia argument for the claimed subject matter.

2. Level of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA)

A person of ordinary skill as of October 31, 2014 (the § 102/§ 103 effective date; the '768 is a continuation of Ser. No. 14/529,669, filed Oct 31, 2014, which is the "Prior art date" recorded on the Google Patents record): a B.S. in electrical/mechanical engineering (or equivalent) with 2–4 years of experience designing back-biased magnetic field sensors for rotational/linear target detection, including familiarity with (i) Hall and magnetoresistance element types and their axes of maximum sensitivity relative to a die plane, (ii) bridge/differential front ends for rejecting common-mode (air-gap, temperature) terms, and (iii) TPOS vs. precision-rotation detection channels.

The specification itself defines this knowledge base in its "Definitions" section — planar Hall elements have axes perpendicular to the substrate; metallic magnetoresistance elements (GMR, TMR, MTJ, AMR) and vertical Hall elements have axes parallel to the substrate. That admission is central: claim 1.4 simply selects from a finite, enumerated, known set of element types to obtain in-plane axes.

3. The prior art available in this record

Because the furnished page's "Prior Art" material is the Google Patents front-page data (prior-art keywords: magnetic field; substrate; target object; sensing elements; field sensor) plus the references the applicant discusses and incorporates, I separate the art into three tiers.

Tier A — Applicant-admitted prior art inside the '768 specification (the strongest art, because it is the patentee's own admission)

This is the decisive point for § 103. A2 is an admission that differencing two spaced sensing elements on one substrate produces "the effect of a low baseline" — i.e., the single benefit the specification attributes to the invention. Once that admission is in the record, the claimed subject matter is a substitution of known elements (a simple magnet for a cored magnet) yielding the same known result, expressly acknowledged in the specification. That is a textbook obviousness posture.

Tier B — Closest published art located by search (needs verification of dates/inventive entity)

§ 102(b)(1) caveat on B1: US 2013/0335074 A1 published 2013-12-19, i.e., within one year of the Oct 31, 2014 effective filing date. It is § 102(a)(1) art unless the § 102(b)(1)(A)/(B) grace-period exception applies (a disclosure by the inventor/joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter from them). If B1 shares an inventor with the '768 (e.g., William P. Taylor), the exception argument exists but is fact-specific and does not automatically extend to subject matter originating with different co-inventors; common corporate ownership alone does not create a § 102(b)(1) exception (common ownership is a § 102(b)(2)(C) concept for applications/patents, not publications). Verify the inventive entity of US 2013/0335074 A1 before relying on B1 as the primary reference.

4. Combination 1 (primary): B1 in view of A2 and A5/A6 — renders granted claim 1 obvious

References combined: US 2013/0335074 A1 (B1) as primary; the FIG. 2/2A sensor (A2) as admitted art; U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,781,005 and 6,278,269 (A5, A6) for the low-baseline/cored-magnet teaching and its cost problem; plus the specification's own enumeration of in-plane-axis element types.

Mapping:

Motivation to combine (why a POSITA would do this, with a reasonable expectation of success):

1. Express cost/simplicity driver. The '768 Background states the goal: "It would be desirable to provide a magnetic field sensor that can achieve an accurate output signal … while using a simpler and less expensive magnet." A5/A6 taught that the cored magnet was used solely to obtain a low baseline; A2 taught that differencing two elements already produces "the effect of a low baseline." Substituting the known simple magnet for the known expensive cored magnet, while retaining the known differencing scheme, is the very combination the applicant set out to make. KSR ("if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill … would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious").
2. Same field, same problem, same result. B1, A2, A5, A6 and the '768 are all back-biased magnetic field sensors for detecting gear teeth/edges. There is no field-crossing problem and no change in principle of operation.
3. Common-mode rejection is a known, predictable benefit. It is elementary that differencing two signals from elements exposed to the same air gap/temperature environment cancels the common-mode term. The '768 does not assert an unexpected result; it asserts the expected result ("results in a zero electronic signal" when both elements see the same field).
4. Element-type selection is a design choice among enumerated alternatives with predictable consequences (in-plane vs. normal axis). No criticality is asserted for the element type.

Combination 1a — supplying limitation 1.8 (the overlap placement)

Limitation 1.8 is the one limitation I could not match to a verified reference. Two routes:

• Route A (placement as a design choice). The '768 itself presents the overlapping arrangement as "an alternate arrangement of any of the above magnetic field sensors" (FIG. 12 caption). Placing the die so that it overlies the target's path — rather than sitting beside it — changes only the physical mounting position of a known sensor, with the predictable consequence that the elements sample the field directly beneath a tooth/valley. Altering the position of a known element to obtain a known effect is an obvious expedient. See MPAA § 2144.04 (mere rearrangement of parts / change in position) and KSR.
• Route B (secondary reference). A back-biased gear sensor whose die/elements sit under the tooth path (target "disposed over the magnetic field sensor, i.e., displaced in a direction parallel to a z-axis," with the largest substrate surface in the plane of movement) is a known topology — it is, e.g., the arrangement disclosed in Allegro's own later US 2020/0371170 A1 (David/Chandra/Taylor), https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/13/85/9a/66f58d6a30adee/US20200371170A1.pdf (published 2020, so not prior art to the '768, cited only as evidence of what the art regarded as a routine placement). A proper prior-art search should locate a pre-Oct-31-2014 reference showing the same topology; the '768's own FIG. 1 already shows the die confronting the gear with the perpendicular line through the sensing element intersecting the gear, differing from 1.8 only in whether the die extends over the gear.

Take-away: Combination 1 (B1 + A2 + A5/A6) plus either Route A or a verified secondary reference for the overlap placement makes claim 1 obvious. The overlap clause, on the record I have, is the only limitation that requires a secondary reference or a design-choice rationale; everything else is met or taught by the applicant's own admissions.

5. Combination 2: B1 + A2 + A4/A3 (TPOS/precision detector electronics) — for the signal-processing dependent claims

For dependent claims reciting output format, threshold storage, or two-state/TPOS-like output (from the published set: output indicative of position; stored thresholds; SENT/I²C/PWM formats; comparators/ADCs/EEPROM/lookup tables), combine:

• B1 / A2 for the analog differential front end (differential proximity signals → difference),
• A4 (US 7,362,094) for the comparator-with-fixed-trimmed-threshold TPOS channel, and
• A3 (US 6,525,531) for the peak-tracking precision-rotation channel and PDAC/NDAC thresholds.

Motivation: the '768 discloses these channels as conventional (FIGS. 1A/2A are labeled prior art by the patentee), and FIG. 8/9's comparator → ADC → EEPROM lookup table → output-protocol chain is a routine aggregation of known circuit blocks. KSR ("a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions"). No functional interaction beyond the predictable is asserted.

6. Combination 3: B2 (EP 2 678 702 B1) + A2 — for the ring-magnet / speed-and-direction dependent claims

For dependent claims directed to a ring-magnet target (alternating N/S poles), to sensing direction of motion from phase relationships, and to two-channel (quadrature-like) arrangements, B2 is directly on point: two differential channels, pairs of sensing elements with non-aligned sensing axes, an output "usable to provide rotational speed information" and "to produce rotation direction information for a rotational target," with Hall or magnetoresistance elements at the designer's option. A2 (FIG. 2A) independently admits a "speed and direction module" fed by two phase-shifted precision-rotation channels, and the '768 description admits that ring magnets with magnetized domains are an alternative target.

Motivation: both references address the same problem (extracting speed and direction from a rotationally moving field source with a multi-element differential front end), and B2 additionally supplies the element-type interchangeability and sensing-axis geometry. The '768's own text concedes that "similar circuits and techniques can be used with … a ring magnet."

7. Combination 4: A7 (Ser. No. 13/946,417) — for the non-ferromagnetic/eddy-current dependent claims

Any claim reciting a non-ferromagnetic conductive target (eddy currents, coil/electromagnet field source) is met by A7, which the '768 incorporates by reference in its own specification. The specification further states that "any of the ferromagnetic target objects can be replaced by a non-ferromagnetic target object" and describes the eddy-current arrangement. Where the applicant incorporates a reference and then claims its subject matter in a dependent claim, the § 103 case is essentially uncontestable (the reference is admitted art by definition).

8. Combination 5: for the CVH / arc-arranged sensing element dependent claims

For claims reciting a circular vertical Hall (CVH) element, or sensing elements arranged along an arc whose radius matches the target's radius (FIG. 16):

• The '768's own "Definitions" section admits CVH elements are a known Hall-element type, and the description states the arc arrangement is an alternative in which "a diameter of the arc can be the same as or similar to a diameter of the gear."
• Conforming an array of sensing elements to the curvature of the target is a placement/geometry optimization with a predictable effect (uniform air gap along the array), squarely within MPEP § 2144.04 (changes in shape/configuration made for functional or manufacturing convenience).
• Element-type substitution (CVH for a linear array of vertical Hall elements; a line of elements for an arc of elements) is a design choice among known alternatives with no asserted criticality.

9. Rebuttal of the expected patentee arguments

(a) "The cored magnet was required for a low baseline." This argument is foreclosed by the applicant's own specification: "the simple magnet 332 does not provide the low baseline of a magnet with a core, [but] differences of the above two magnetic field signals result in an effect similar to a low baseline." The specification concedes the function is preserved. No teaching away.

(b) "The prior art elements point at the target; the invention points along it." The claim's own text (limitation 1.5) requires the connecting line not to intersect the target, and B1/A2 already place the elements in a row along the target's tangent. Nothing about the claimed geometry produces an unexpected result; it is an orientation choice with a stated consequence (differential cancellation of the common-mode term).

(c) "Secondary considerations." There is no adjudicative record of nexus, licensing, or copying for this specific claim set. The specification's cost/simplicity benefit (a cheaper magnet) is not claimed — the granted claim 1 is magnet-agnostic — so the asserted commercial advantage cannot supply nexus to the claimed subject matter without a showing that the claimed combination is what drives the sales. Because no litigation or IPR exists (per the prior Litigation Summary), no objective-indicia record has been developed.

(d) Potential "criticality" argument on the ±20° ranges. There is no disclosure of criticality; the ranges are broad and tolerance-driven. Absent a showing that values outside the ranges fail, the ranges are a design choice.

10. Weaknesses in the § 103 case, and what must be verified

1. Claim text is secondary-sourced. The granted claim 1 quoted above comes from RPX Insight, not USPTO. The granted claim set of US 10,753,768 should be pulled from Patent Center / USPTO full-text before any opinion is finalized — the published claim 1 and the granted claim 1 demonstrably differ (Contradiction #1), and the same divergence may exist in the dependent claims and in claim 9.
2. Limitation 1.8 (overlap) has no verified primary-reference mapping. This is the crux of the granted claim and the weakest link. A pre-Oct-31-2014 reference showing a gear-sensor die whose elements overlie the target path (with the perpendicular through an element striking the target) is needed. Search terms: die-mounted-under-gear, "overlapping" target, back-biased MR speed sensor packaging, vertical Hall linear array beneath a tooth path; assignees Bosch, Continental, Infineon, NXP, Melexis, Allegro.
3. § 102(b)(1) status of B1 (US 2013/0335074 A1) is unresolved. Confirm its inventive entity and whether any grace-period exception applies. If B1 is removed from the prior art, the primary reference role falls to the applicant's admitted FIG. 2/FIG. 2A subject matter (A2), which is admission-based art and therefore immune to the grace-period issue — a materially safer, if slightly less specific, posture.
4. EP 2 678 702 B1's applicant/publication date must be confirmed to establish its § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) status as of Oct 31, 2014. I did not verify its publication date or applicant in a form I would stake an opinion on; only its technical content.
5. The "Prior Art" section of the furnished Google Patents page could not be fully retrieved (the "References Cited" block and the "Similar Documents"/"Cited By" lists for US10753768B2 specifically). Additional cited art may exist that strengthens or weakens the combinations above. This is a gap in inputs, not a negative finding.

11. Bottom line

Subject to verification of (i) the granted claim text and (ii) limitation 1.8's placement art, granted claim 1 of US 10,753,768 is vulnerable to a § 103 challenge, with the strongest combination being:

US 2013/0335074 A1 (Allegro's own two-element, common-substrate, magnet-adjacent, differencing edge-detector gear sensor) in view of the applicant-admitted FIG. 2/FIG. 2A sensor (which expressly states that differencing "result[s] in the effect of a low baseline") and U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,781,005 / 6,278,269 (cored-magnet low-baseline teaching and its cost penalty), further in view of a reference or design-choice rationale establishing that the sensor die may overlie the target's path (limitation 1.8), and with the in-plane-axis element selection supplied by the specification's own admission that magnetoresistance and vertical Hall elements have response axes parallel to the substrate.

The dependent claims fall with additional, well-matched references: US 7,362,094 / 6,525,531 for the TPOS and precision-rotation electronics; EP 2 678 702 B1 for dual differential channels, non-aligned sensing axes, and speed/direction output with Hall-or-MR elements; Ser. No. 13/946,417 (incorporated by reference in the '768 itself) for the non-ferromagnetic/eddy-current target; and the specification's own admissions for CVH elements and arc-arranged element arrays.

The unifying § 103 rationale is that the patentee expressly identified its own goal (replace an expensive cored magnet with a simple one) and expressly admitted that the known differencing technique already yields the low-baseline effect the cored magnet provided — a predictable substitution of known elements, in the same field, for the same purpose, with a reasonable expectation of success, in which no criticality is claimed and no unexpected result is asserted.

Not adjudicated: no PTAB or court has ever construed these claims or applied § 103 to them; all conclusions above are analytical.