Invalidity dossier
US 110924
Improvement in plows
Added 9/23/2026, 11:11:13 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview: US 110,924
Title: Improvement in Plows
Patentee: John M. Leonard, of Marshall, Calhoun County, Michigan
Patent Number: US 110,924
Date of Patent: January 10, 1871
Terminal Event Noted in Record: Anticipated expiration January 10, 1888 (legal status listed as "Expired – Lifetime")
Assignee: None stated in the supplied text.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US110924](/patent/US110924)/en
Purpose
The invention concerns the "jointer"—a small plow attached to the beam forward of the main plow, ordinarily used for subsoil arrangement to make a small furrow ahead of the principal one. Leonard's stated object is to cut and turn a small surface slice (with its herbage and stubble) to the left and onto the previously turned furrow-slice, so that surface growth is "completely and effectively covered up" rather than mixing with the main slice being turned to the right.
Plain-Language Scope
The patent describes a cutting-share (A) and mold-board (B), somewhat resembling a left-hand plow, connected to the main plow. A twist formed where the standard merges into the mold-board sets the share and mold-board faces at a suitable angle to the ground for easy soil penetration. The mold-board is preferably cast iron, the cutting-share plate steel or steel-faced iron; for some soils both may be one steel plate. An optional removable roller (D) with a bottom flange can virtually increase mold-board depth for rank growth. The mold-board curve is continued across the share. The inventor notes the jointer could alternatively be connected near the shin rather than the beam, and that right/left terminology applies to right-hand plows (reversed for left-hand plows). The claimed novelty is the combination, with each other and with a plow, of the jointer-share and mold-board A B, with or without roller D.
What the Excerpt Does Not Establish
The supplied text does not identify an assignee, does not address litigation, ownership transfers, validity, or prior-art comparisons, and the OCR-derived text contains garbled passages—so some descriptive details cannot be confirmed.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:32:50 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 110924. 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.
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.
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.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.