Invalidity dossier
US 181074
Added 9/17/2026, 1:24:17 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 181,074 — Improvement in Watch-Keys
Title: Improvement in Watch-Keys
Patentee: William S. Hicks, of New York, N.Y.
Patent Number: US 181,074
Application Filed: July 17, 1876
Date of Patent (Publication/Grant): August 15, 1876
Assignee: None stated in the supplied text.
Classification: G04B3/006 (mechanical winding up; winding up with special equipment), per the source page.
Purpose: The invention provides a watch-key whose case is made in the style or form of a cannon, with the key bit arranged to be forced in or out of the case by means of a screw. The stated advantages are that such a key "is highly ornamental" and that the socket is protected by being drawn within the case.
Plain-Language Scope: The key's case (A) is made in two parts, a and b. Part a carries trunnions c; part b carries a ring F for attaching or suspending the key. The internal mechanism has three parts in the described embodiment: rod B (with a square hole or socket in its outer end and a lateral pin, O), tube C (with a longitudinal slot l in which the pin slides), and a spirally-slotted tube D fitted over tube C. Assembled, these operate like an ordinary screw-pencil, so that turning tube D while holding tube C stationary forces the key bit in or out. Case part b is slipped onto the screw mechanism and soldered fast to tube D; case part a is slipped on and soldered or otherwise fastened at its lower end to tube C. Because parts a and b turn separately with their respective mechanism parts, the bit can be protruded or retracted at will. The specification adds that the "magic movement" screw mechanism may be substituted.
Claim: The single claim is: "In combination with the case A, composed of the parts a and b, the bit or tube B and the screw mechanism, substantially as described."
What the excerpt does not establish: It states no assignee, no litigation, no ownership transfer, and no validity determination; it lists no prior-art references relied upon during examination. It also does not establish the actual commercial embodiment, materials, or dimensions.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US181074](/patent/US181074)/en
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:03:11 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 181074. 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.