Invalidity dossier
US 5808894
Automated ordering method
Current assignee: Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH
Added 9/24/2026, 1:42:43 AM
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 5,808,894
Title: Automated ordering method
Patent number: US 5,808,894 A
Application number: US08/329,725
Inventors: Timothy A. Wiens; Richard A. Burgess
Original assignee: Optipat Inc
Current assignee (as listed): Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH
Priority/filing date: 1994-10-26
Publication (grant) date: 1998-09-15
Legal status (as listed): Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2015-09-15
Purpose. The invention relates generally to computerized ordering of a product or service via a communications medium — telephone lines, local area network (LAN), satellite, or generally any medium carrying digital communications data. A stated aim is to let users compose orders before calling the central computer, thereby minimizing telephone expenses.
Plain-language scope. A user enters an order at a remote computer terminal and may review it before transmission. The user then transmits at least the order and customer-identifying information to the vendor's central computer via modem or facsimile. The vendor computer verifies the order and returns a job number to the customer computer. It also compares the customer information against previously stored customer database information to determine whether the customer is a previous customer. If a match is found, the order proceeds in a first, more automated manner; if no match is found, the order proceeds in a second manner, potentially including early ordering-personnel intervention appropriate to new customers. The excerpt indicates this comparison may involve several steps, such as comparing a customer name field.
Classification (as listed): G06Q10/087 (inventory or stock management, e.g. order filling/procurement) and related G06Q classes.
What the excerpt does not establish. It does not provide the full specification, complete claims, drawings, or figures; the claim language defining the invention's legal scope is not reproduced. It does not establish the full sequence of the customer-comparison steps, any billing or confirmation-file details, or examination/prosecution history. Assignee listings are expressly stated to be assumptions not verified as accurate.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:31:10 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5808894. 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.