Invalidity dossier
US 214230
Improvement in machines for making can-heads
Added 9/23/2026, 2:20:50 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 214,230
Title: Improvement in Machines for Making Can-Heads
Inventor: Charles P. Babcock, of Portland, Cumberland County, Maine.
Dates: Application filed January 14, 1878; patent granted and published April 15, 1879. The record lists an anticipated expiration of April 15, 1896. No assignee is named in the supplied text.
Purpose: The machine makes previously useless studs — the circular pieces cut from tin can-heads to form the central hole — reusable. Because each stud was the same size as the hole it came from, it could not be soldered back. Babcock's machine shrinks the hole so the stud overlaps its edge and can be soldered in place, avoiding loss of the stud and the cost of new ones.
Plain-language scope: In operation, the machine first stamps a can-head with a raised circular bulge or ring near its center (Fig. 11). A punch then cuts out the stud, taking enough of the bulge to give the stud a curved edge (Fig. 12), leaving a hole surrounded by the raised ring (Fig. 13). Pressure then forces that ring downward and inward (Fig. 14), reducing the hole's diameter so the stud overlaps the head and can be soldered on. Alternatively, the cut-out piece may be stretched or flattened to enlarge it, with the change in relative sizes distributed partly to the stud and partly to the head.
Structurally, the machine uses a power-wheel B driving gear A through a spring-loaded stud-and-notch safety coupling; gear A drives gears C and D; a toothed segment g and shaft s oscillate a pivoted frame m and pitman p to index rotary die disks t, t′ past punches u, v, w. Upper and lower plungers perform the cutting and shaping. A spring-hook arrangement turns the upper disk with the lower and holds it stationary during punching.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US214230](/patent/US214230)/en
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not name an assignee, identify claims by number or text (no numbered claims appear), report any litigation, ownership transfer, or validity determination, or discuss prior art beyond the inventor's own statement of the former problem.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:52:22 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 214230. 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.