Invalidity dossier

US 271996

Peters

Added 9/24/2026, 12:47:51 AM

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: US 271,996

Title and parties. The patent is a "Bedstead-Fastening" granted to Horace E. Swift of Providence, Rhode Island, assignor to himself and to Charles Benson and Stephen T. Willets of the same place (specification heading). Note that the Google Patents page displays the title as "Peters" in headers and in the family/landscape listings, and lists "Peters" as the family application title; this is consistent with the page's "Prior art keywords" block rather than with the specification, which names Swift as inventor. The two labels are not reconciled in the supplied text.

Dates. Application filed June 19, 1882 (Model). Patent dated February 6, 1883. The page lists a prior art date and publication date of 1883-02-06, and an "anticipated expiration" of 1900-02-06, with current legal status "Expired - Lifetime."

Purpose. The invention is an improvement in bedstead-rail fastenings. The specification states that in ordinary fastenings using a fixed cam-hook, or a fixed plain hook operating against a stationary cam-surface on the post, wear tends to loosen the joint, careful workmanship is needed, and the joints are liable to bind so as to prevent ready removal of the rail.

Plain-language scope. The rail B has a groove or saw-cut b at its ends in which a hook C is pivoted at c. The hook engages a pin D extending across the groove or mortise a in the post A. The rail may be supported laterally by a flange d and by a pin f set in the end of the rail above the hook C and entering a mortise in the post above pin D, to resist twisting strain on the hook from lateral strain on the rail. A transverse wire pin g, or equivalent fixed stop, is placed in the rail below the shank of the hook C to prevent the hook from moving to a downward inclination with the end of the rail, so that the hook cannot continue to hold pin e and draw the rail back against the post while the rail is being raised for removal. The single claim covers the combination of the pivoted hook held in the rail groove with a fixed stop against downward inclination, plus the hook-engaging pin passing across the groove or mortise in the post, substantially as described. The patent acknowledges that loose hooks were previously used for bedstead fastenings, but states those were constructed so the fastening was effected by drawing the hook back with wedges or cams.

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US271996](/patent/US271996)/en

What the excerpt does not establish. It does not provide drawing figures (only descriptions of Figs. 2–4), independent claims, prosecution history, or any comparison to specific named prior-art patents; the "Similar Documents" list appears as page metadata rather than as applicant or examiner citations. It also does not resolve the "Peters" versus "Swift" naming discrepancy, and no legal conclusions as to validity or scope should be drawn from it.

Generated 10/1/2026, 9:31:51 PM

Cases on file (0)

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 271996. 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.