US 3074572

I'll search for the specific patent number and check CAFC dockets as requested.

Let me check for any CAFC or litigation records more specifically, and verify USPTO records.

Let me do a couple more targeted checks on USPTO records and any case dockets.

US Patent 3,074,572 — Search Summary

Verification note on searches

I searched for the literal patent number 3074572 (and variants "3,074,572", "US3074572A", "US-3074572-A"). The results confirm this patent — no similar-number matches were substituted. I found no CAFC 2026 docket entries, district-court cases, or other 2026 litigation records referencing this patent. Given that the patent expired in ~1980 (see status below), the absence of current CAFC docket activity is expected, but I cannot rule out older or non-indexed proceedings.

Bibliographic data

Source: patent text (Google Patents US3074572A), FreePatentsOnline 3074572, Unified Patents US-3074572-A.

Abstract

The Google Patents/USPTO record for this patent does not include a formal published abstract (this era of patents generally had none). The invention, as disclosed in the specification, is: an industrial truck leverage system for elevating/lowering a load carriage (fork) in a substantially vertical straight-line path and tilting the carriage at any elevation, using a minimum number of parts. It improves on the inventor's earlier lifting mechanism (US 2,980,271) by eliminating two supporting arms and two tilting links: the same ram that tilts the carriage also forms part of the mounting structure that lets the carriage-supporting levers shift longitudinally, compensating for the arc motion of the levers so the fork travels vertically. The truck also features a low, accessible battery compartment beneath the leverage system, improving stability and service access.

Independent claims — plain-language overview

The patent has 3 claims, all independent (claims 1–3).

Claim 1 — A truck with a load carriage and a pair of levers pivoted at one end to the carriage (spaced apart) and at the other end to an arm at the same spacing, forming a parallelogram (carriage + levers + arm). A lift mechanism connected to the levers and the truck swings the levers vertically about their pivots on the arm to raise/lower the carriage. A lever and a ram, each pivoted at one end to the arm (spaced) and at the other end to the truck (same spacing), allow the arm and levers to move bodily fore-and-aft so the carriage travels in a substantially straight vertical path; operating that ram also pivots the arm to tilt the carriage. A control link, pivoted to one of the levers and to the truck, is sized/positioned so that it drives the bodily movement of the levers and arm (through swinging of the ram and lever) in the direction and amount needed to keep the carriage on the substantially vertical straight-line path during raising/lowering.

Claim 2 — Everything in claim 1, plus: the parallelogram keeps the carriage at a particular angular position relative to the truck while it is raised/lowered; and ram means pivoted to the truck at one end and to the control link at the other pivot the link, simultaneously producing both the vertical swinging of the levers and the bodily longitudinal movement of the levers/arms. (This corresponds to the single bell-crank/lift-ram arrangement doing both jobs.)

Claim 3 — Substantially the same combination as claim 1, but phrased more broadly with "link means" (rather than "a control link") connected to one of the levers and to the truck, positioned and dimensioned so that it effects the bodily movement of the levers and arm through the swinging of the ram and lever, keeping the carriage on the substantially vertical straight-line path as the levers are raised and lowered.

Uncertainty / caveats

• No CAFC 2026 docket or current litigation found — searches of site:cafc.uscourts.gov and general 2026 docket queries returned nothing. I cannot affirmatively rule out an appeal filed under an abbreviation or a PACER-only record not indexed by search engines.
• The formal abstract is not present in the USPTO/Google record; the summary above is drawn from the specification's own language.
• Minor discrepancies between aggregators (e.g., grant date Jan. 21 vs. Jan. 22, 1963; filing date Feb. 24 vs. Feb. 25, 1960) exist; I relied on the patent document and Google Patents record (Jan. 22, 1963; Feb. 25, 1960) as authoritative.
• The OCR in the fetched patent text contains artifacts (e.g., "Feb. 25, 1969" for the divisional filing, "lever 1?" for lever 17, "3,d7t,572") — these are scanning errors, not substantive.