Invalidity dossier
US 319216
Haji floyd
Added 9/23/2026, 10:15:39 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 319,216
Title: Hansom Cab (Google Patents page displays the title as "Haji floyd," an apparent OCR artifact; the specification itself reads "HANSOM CAB.")
Inventor: Charles Ashburnham Floyd, of Eastbourne, County of Sussex, England.
Dates: Application filed June 5, 1884; patent granted and published June 2, 1885. Foreign counterparts noted in the specification: Great Britain No. 5,766 (December 17, 1883) and France No. 160,431 (February 19, 1884). Google Patents lists the prior-art date as June 2, 1885 and legal status as "Expired – Lifetime."
Assignee: None stated in the supplied text.
Purpose: To shelter a hansom-cab passenger from weather, sunshine, or dust "without interfering with the comfort and ventilation of the interior of the vehicle," and to stow passengers' umbrellas so they are not forgotten on leaving. The specification states the same arrangement suits smaller like-formed vehicles, such as invalid chairs and perambulators.
Plain-language scope (as claimed):
- Claim 1: In combination with a hansom-cab's stationary roof, a hood formed of a segmental top with two sides extending down to pivots acting as an axis, allowing the hood to be thrown forward or retracted within the stationary roof.
- Claim 2: A vehicle with the driver's seat in the rear and a front hood fitted with glass panels.
Disclosed but expressly not claimed: The door-handle made as a ring admitting an umbrella, with a spring cup below whose depression drives a pin (H) into the floor as a door bolt, released only when the umbrella is withdrawn. The specification states this construction "forms the subject-matter of another application filed by me on the 25th day of July, 1884."
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not identify an assignee, provide claim-by-claim prosecution history, or show the drawings, figures, or reference numerals' full layout beyond the described elements. It gives no information on litigation, ownership transfers, validity, or substantive prior-art analysis; the "Cited By" entry (US 3,344,355, Motorola) is unrelated on its face. Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US319216](/patent/US319216)/en
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:33:37 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 319216. 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.