US 5885189

I'll verify the patent data and check for any litigation or CAFC dockets.

US Patent 5,885,189 — Verification Brief

Bibliographic Data (from the authoritative full text)

Assignment chain (per the record): inventors → American Sports International, Ltd. (1998-04-08) → Heller Financial security interest (2002) → Russell Corporation (2004) → Russell Asset Management, Inc. (2005) → merger back into Russell Corporation (2007) → name/corporate-form conversion to Russell Brands, LLC (2009). A certificate of correction was recorded 1999-08-24.

Abstract (verbatim)

"A balance beam has an elongated beam member having opposite ends, a center portion, a top and a bottom, with legs on the bottom thereof adjacent the ends. Each leg has an upper and a lower end. A resilient support assembly is mounted within the elongated beam adjacent the ends thereof with each support assembly having a depending clevis extending downwardly therefrom with each clevis being pivotally secured to one of the upper ends of the legs. The legs extend downwardly and outwardly from the support assembly in the plane of the beam member so that the lower ends thereof dwell substantially under the ends of the beam member. Elongated links are pivotally secured by their ends to one end of the beam and one end of each of the legs to hold the beam member in an erected elevated horizontal position. Each leg has an upper portion that extends downwardly and outwardly from the clevis, and a lower portion that extends downwardly and outwardly from the upper portion, with the upper and lower portions having center axes forming an obtuse angle with respect to each other. The resilient support assembly is positioned within the beam and has two end blocks rigidly secured to the beam. An intermediate block is slidably mounted between the end blocks and is associated with the clevis. The resilient element is located between the intermediate block and the end block nearest the center portion of the beam member so that when a vertical force is applied downwardly on the top of the beam, the resilient element will yieldingly resist the sliding of the intermediate block towards the center portion. The legs on the beam are vertically adjustable and have an assist spring interposed between telescoping portions of the legs to assist the lifting of the beam during the height adjustment process."

Independent Claim in Plain Language

Claim 1 is the sole independent claim. Read plainly, it covers a gymnastics balance beam made of:

1. A beam member — elongated, with two opposite ends, a center portion, a top and a bottom.
2. Two legs — attached at the bottom near the ends; each leg has an upper end and a lower end.
3. Two resilient support assemblies inside the beam — mounted near the ends, each with a clevis hanging down and pivotally pinned to the upper end of its respective leg. Each assembly has:
   • two end blocks rigidly fixed to the beam member;
   • an intermediate block that slides between them and is coupled to the clevis;
   • a resilient element (the spec discloses a urethane spring, ~60–95 Shore A durometer; and, per claim 4, the beam itself is "slightly resilient") trapped between the intermediate block and the end block nearest the beam's center.
   • Functional result: downward force on the top of the beam makes the intermediate block slide toward the beam center, resisted by the resilient element — i.e., a horizontal, height-independent "reflex" action rather than vertical leg flex.
4. Leg geometry — legs run downward and outward from the support assembly, within a vertical plane of the beam, so the leg bottoms land substantially under the beam ends.
5. Elongated links — pivotally pinned at one end to the beam and at the other to the leg(s), holding the beam in an erected, elevated, horizontal position.

Claim-construction note (literal reading): the claim recites "elongated links pivotally secured by their ends to one end of said beam and to one or each of said legs." The alternative "one or each" is unusual language and, together with the typographical "sidably" (for "slidably") in the claim as published, is worth flagging if this claim were ever construed. These should be preserved as written, not corrected.

Dependent claims (2–9), briefly:

• 2 — each leg has an upper portion and a lower portion whose center axes form an obtuse angle (spec: ~135° at a "knee").
• 3 — legs are length-adjustable.
• 4 — beam is slightly resilient and the support assembly lets the leg upper ends move resiliently horizontally toward the center when loaded.
• 5 — end blocks are fixed to a base plate bolted to the beam bottom, with an opening through which the clevis passes.
• 6 — downward beam deflection causes the leg upper ends to move horizontally toward the center portion.
• 7 — hollow legs with a rigid floor-engaging tube slidable therein, registrable apertures, a pin, and a releasable lock bolt.
• 8 — a sleeve inside the hollow tube limits how far the pin penetrates.
• 9 — an elongated coiled assist spring runs from the tube bottom to a closed upper end of the sleeve, held in permanent compression to help lift the beam during height adjustment.

Litigation / CAFC 2026 Check — Important Caveat

I searched for the specific number 5,885,189 for any CAFC or district-court activity:

• No CAFC 2026 docket, appeal, or litigation involving US 5,885,189 was found. A search for "5885189 / CAFC / litigation / infringement" returned only an unrelated CalAmp/Omega Patents transcript and unrelated patent references.
• The record shows the patent lapsed for nonpayment of maintenance fees effective 2011-03-23, with the last fee payment at the 8-year mark. A patent that lapsed in 2011 would not normally be a live candidate for 2026 appellate activity.
• Uncertainty statement: I cannot claim this as definitive. I do not have authoritative, real-time access to the complete USPTO PTAB/Docket or the CAFC 2026 argument calendar, and web search coverage of district-court dockets is incomplete. If you need a court-verified negative, that should be confirmed directly via PACER and the CAFC docket/RSS, or the USPTO Patent Center / PTAB records, rather than asserted on the basis of these searches.

Practical Takeaways

• The inventive core is a horizontal-sliding, spring-cushioned clevis mount inside the beam, giving consistent reflex at any height — a point the background expressly frames as an improvement over prior beams that "get more flexible at lower heights."
• The assist spring inside the telescoping leg (claims 8–9) is a secondary, height-adjustment-convenience feature.
• The only prior art cited on the face is US 3,990,697; note that US 5,037,086 ("Balance beam with reflex mechanism") appears among "similar documents" but is not a listed citation, so it should not be described as cited prior art for this patent.

Bottom line: US 5,885,189 is an expired (2011) gymnastics balance-beam patent, originally held by American Sports International, Ltd. and now listed to Russell Brands, LLC, with no verified 2026 CAFC activity found.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 5885189 across patent litigation databases.

Initial searches returned no results. Let me try more targeted sources.

These results are false positives ('189 patents in unrelated cases). Let me search more specifically for this balance beam patent and its assignees.

Litigation Search Results: US Patent 5,885,189 ("Balance Beam")

Bottom line

I was unable to identify any litigation — district court, ITC Section 337, or Federal Circuit appeal — involving US Patent 5,885,189. Based on the searches run, no known infringement suits, declaratory judgment actions, or other adversarial proceedings appear to exist for this specific patent.

I want to be transparent about the limits of this answer: my searches returned no litigation records for this patent, and I did not have direct live access to PACER, Westlaw/Lexis, Docket Navigator, or the Unified Patents litigation portal case list for a definitive negative confirmation. I recommend verifying against those databases (and against the patent's full prosecution/assignment history) before relying on this as a conclusive "no litigation" finding.

Why several "hits" are NOT this patent (important — do not conflate)

My searches surfaced a few false positives containing an "'189 patent." These are different patents and must not be attributed to US 5,885,189:

• Actus LLC v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00102 (E.D. Tex.) — the "'189 patent" and "'099 patent" there are financial-services/banking patents asserted against Western Union, not a gymnastics balance beam. (Source: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2009cv00102/[115490/184](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=115490-0184)/0.pdf)

Neither of those involves the balance-beam patent at issue here.

Patent profile (for context on why litigation is unlikely)

Key point: the patent lapsed in 2011 for non-payment of maintenance fees — meaning any enforcement litigation (which would typically occur during the enforceable term, roughly 1999–2011) is not indicated in the records available to me. The patent was never asserted in the public records I could reach.

Related-but-distinct patents (not litigation of '189)

If you are researching this patent family, note these family members and later patents exist and could have their own litigation histories worth checking separately:

• US 6,077,195 A — "Balance beam" (continuation-in-part of '189)
• US 6,168,549 B1 — "Leg assembly for balance beam" (American Sports International)
• Cited-by references include later third-party patents such as US 11,351,408 B2 (Milliard Enterprises, adjustable height balance beam) and US 12,357,862 B2 (Yinglin Han, balance beam).

These are not litigation of US 5,885,189.

Recommended next steps to confirm

To get a definitive litigation record, query:

1. Unified Patents Portal — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation (search by patent number)
2. PACER — https://pacer.uscourts.gov (search docket text for "5,885,189")
3. CourtListener / RECAP — https://www.courtlistener.com (docket search)
4. USITC EDIS — for any Section 337 investigation
5. Federal Circuit case search for any appeal (none surfaced)

Conclusion

No litigation is known for US Patent 5,885,189. The patent issued in 1999, was assigned through the American Athletic → Russell corporate chain, and expired in 2011 for failure to pay maintenance fees — with no infringement actions, DJ actions, ITC investigations, or appeals appearing in the records I could search. I could not locate any case providing plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome, because I found no such case.

I'll start by running targeted searches to confirm whether any AIA trial proceedings exist for this patent, since the ODP block reports none but web sources sometimes surface older or unindexed filings.

No IPR hits yet. Let me check the PTAB/CAFC dockets and any litigation history directly.

PTAB Proceedings Report — US 5,885,189 ("Balance beam")

Prepared: 2026-10-01 · Patent: US 5,885,189 B1 · Filing date: 1997-10-31 · Granted: 1999-03-23 · Inventors: Mark R. Lane, Neal C. Squibb · Original assignee: American Sports International, Ltd. (d/b/a American Athletic, Inc.) · Current assignee of record: Russell Brands, LLC · Statutory status: Expired — fee lapse effective 2011-03-23; anticipated expiration 2017-10-31.

---

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file against US 5,885,189 — the total count is zero (0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials). The canonical USPTO Open Data Portal "PTAB proceedings on file" block for this patent is empty, and my independent searches (Google Patents citation/litigation tab, Justia patent page, patent-aggregator profiles for American Sports International, and general web queries pairing the patent number with "IPR," "PTAB," and "Patent Trial and Appeal Board") returned no IPR, PGR, or CBM proceeding referencing this patent. There is therefore no claims-invalidated proceeding to lead with, no FWD to quote, and no Federal Circuit appeal to trace.

Bottom-line defensive posture: there is no IPR-based invalidation history for a defendant to lean on — and equally no PTAB estoppel constraining a defendant's freedom to attack validity. Critically, the patent is expired (maintenance-fee lapse 2011-03-23; statutory term ran to 2017-10-31), so it cannot be asserted for prospective injunctive relief and damages exposure is limited to past infringement within the limitations period. Any assertion today would rest on a dead patent — which is itself a threshold defense that makes an IPR largely unnecessary as a practical matter.

---

Per-proceeding detail

None. There are no proceedings to report. For completeness, so a defendant does not mistake absence for incomplete research, here is what I searched and what I did not find:

Because there is no proceeding, I am not populating the ### {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} subsections, as doing so would require fabricating numbers, panels, or dispositions. I have not done so.

Caveat on confidence: The ODP is authoritative and reports zero. My web sweep corroborates that, but general web search of PTAB filings is not exhaustive. If you need a belt-and-suspenders confirmation for a defensive file, verify directly at USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov — search by patent number under "Proceedings") and cross-check a commercial docketing source (Docket Navigator or Lex Machina). If either surfaces a proceeding not indexed in ODP, that would be the rare case flagged in the framing instructions; nothing surfaced here.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: entirely UNTESTED — none canceled, none sustained. All nine claims of US 5,885,189 stand exactly as issued (subject only to any certificate of correction, a "CC" event appearing 1999-08-24 in the file). Claim 1 is the sole independent claim — it recites the elongated beam member, the pair of resilient support assemblies each with a depending clevis pivotally secured to the leg upper ends, the two end blocks with a slidably mounted intermediate block and a resilient element between that block and the center-most end block, legs extending downwardly/outwardly in the vertical plane of the beam with lower ends dwelling substantially under the beam ends, and elongated links pivotally securing the beam to the legs. Claims 2–9 are dependent: 2 (obtuse-angle leg portions), 3 (length-adjustable legs), 4 (slight beam resilience + horizontal leg-end movement on loading), 5 (end blocks on a base plate with clevis opening), 6 (downward deflection → horizontal leg-end movement toward center), 7 (telescoping hollow legs with registerable apertures, pin, and lock bolt), 8 (sleeve limiting pin penetration), and 9 (compressed coiled assist spring between the tube bottom and the sleeve's closed upper end). Since no claim has ever been tested at the PTAB, any validity argument a defendant makes would be a first impression — no prior PTAB construction, no FWD findings, no Board credibility determinations to borrow.

Estoppel landscape: wide open. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM was ever instituted against this patent, no petitioner (or its privies/real parties in interest) is subject to § 315(e)(2) estoppel on any ground. A defendant today can raise any § 102/§ 103 ground it can muster, in either the PTAB or district court, with no estoppel shadow. The two independent "narrowing" mechanisms that normally hem in a defendant are simply absent here. The one real constraint is the patent's expired status: with the term run out, an IPR petition would serve little litigation purpose (no live injunction), so a defendant's cheaper path is a district-court invalidity/section 286 damages-cutoff defense rather than a PTAB filing.

Pattern signals: none. No petitioner has filed even one IPR against this patent, let alone a serial campaign. There is no defensive-aggregator footprint — no Unified Patents (or RPX-type) filing appears in any source I checked. The patent owner has never had to defend a PTAB appeal, so there is no "aggressive PTAB-appellant" pattern to anticipate. The ownership chain is a corporate-succession story, not a litigation one: American Sports International → Heller Financial security interest (2002) → Russell Corporation (2004) → Russell Asset Management (2005) → Russell Corporation merger (2007) → Russell Brands, LLC (2009) → maintenance-fee lapse (2011). Note the related family members a defendant should also watch: US 6,077,195 (filed 1998-08-18 as a continuation-in-part of this application, claiming a trolley-based support assembly) and US 6,168,549 (leg assembly for a balance beam) — these are separate patents and would need their own PTAB and validity review.

---

Recommended next steps

• Confirm the zero-count independently before relying on it in a defensive memo. Pull the patent number in PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and, if you have access, run it in Docket Navigator / Lex Machina. The ODP is authoritative and shows nothing; the commercial docket is the tie-breaker if a recently-filed petition has not yet been ingested.
• Lead with the expiration defense, not validity. The patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees on 2011-03-23 (file event: "LAPSE FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES," effective 2011-03-23) after the fee-payment reminder mailed 2010-10-25; the statutory term would have ended 2017-10-31. Any demand letter asserting this patent today is asserting an expired patent — check whether it actually cites US 6,077,195 or US 6,168,549 instead, which are more plausible live targets within the family but also expired, so verify their fee status too.
• If you do end up needing a validity challenge, no estoppel blocks you, so build the strongest § 103 combination from the art already in the record. The face of the patent cites US 3,990,697 (Balance beam with a resilient coating, Olympic Spieth Anderson). The same assignee's earlier US 5,037,086 ("Balance beam with reflex mechanism," Vincent T. Strand — spring/angled-slot reflex bracket) and US 3,510,129 (adjustable-height balance beam) are the closest art in the family's own lineage and appear in the "Similar Documents" set; all are fair game for an obviousness combination since no prior IPR has consumed them.
• Mind the clock if a petition is ever filed. Should any IPR materialize, the statutory framework is the usual one: a preliminary-response/institution decision within ~6 months of filing, a 1-year trial deadline from institution to FWD (extendable for good cause under § 316(a)(11)), with oral hearing near the 8–9 month mark. But that framing is hypothetical here — there is no active proceeding to track today.

Primary source for the patent text, claim set, and file history: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5885189/en. For any future PTAB opinion citations, use USPTO PTAB Decisions (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and CourtListener (https://www.courtlistener.com). No FWD or CAFC opinion is cited above because none exists for this patent.

I'll ground this with targeted searches on the parties and the record, then reconstruct the chain from the authoritative patent text.

Ownership & Assignment Record — US 5,885,189 ("Balance beam")

Sources used: the authoritative full patent text/legal-events feed for US 5,885,189 (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-24), cross-checked against Google Patents assignee records, Russell Corporation press releases (2004), and local/industry coverage of American Athletic, Inc. (AAI). Assignment correspondents are drawn from the recorded reel/frame metadata available in the source; where a correspondent is not exposed by the feed I say so rather than guessing.

Important caveat on correspondents: the Google Patents "Legal Events" feed for this patent carries reel/frame, conveyance, assignor, assignee, and effective/recorded dates, but not the correspondent (filing attorney/agent) of record. I did not fabricate correspondent names. To capture correspondents you must open each reel/frame in USPTO Assignment Center directly (links below).

---

Inventors

Both named inventors were employees of the operating company American Athletic, Inc. (AAI) of Jefferson, Iowa, and both assigned their rights to the company by the assignment executed 1997-10-28 (recorded 1998-04-08, reel 009100/0622) — three days before the 1997-10-31 filing date.

Unusual-pattern check: none. There is no evidence of inventors departing within 12 months of filing. To the contrary, both inventors remained long-term AAI personnel:

• Mark R. Lane is documented as AAI/Spalding Vice-President of Operations in 2014 and 2017 news coverage of the Jefferson, Iowa plant.
• Neal C. Squibb is described by AAI founder Bill Sorenson as the company's long-serving designer ("the most inventive, skilled with steel and other materials guy I've ever worked with"), tied to the company's locking-device and apparatus patents.

The related continuation-in-part US 6,077,195 (filed 1998-08-18, same priority) names an expanded internal team — Leslie M. Arp, Sue M. Sherlock, and Bill W. Sorenson — which is consistent with an active in-house R&D group at an operating manufacturer, not a patent-holding shell.

---

Original assignee

American Sports International, Ltd., d/b/a American Athletic, Inc. ("AAI")

• Primary business: Design and manufacture of gymnastics apparatus, trampolines, basketball/volleyball equipment, mats, and gymnasium equipment; headquartered in Jefferson, Iowa; founded 1954 (as the American Trampoline Company).
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Yes. AAI was described in 2004 trade/press coverage as "the world's leading supplier of gymnastic equipment" and an official equipment supplier to USA Gymnastics and multiple Olympic Games. The patented balance beam with the urethane-spring reflex support assembly was a commercial apparatus line.
• Current status: The AAI business was acquired and continues to operate as AAI / Spalding (Jefferson, Iowa) under Russell Brands, LLC → Fruit of the Loom → Berkshire Hathaway. The patent itself lapsed in 2011 (see timeline).

---

Assignment timeline

All entries below are recorded assignments/security instruments from the legal-events record. Ordered by execution (effective) date. Reels/frames are as recorded.

• 1997-10-28 (executed) / 1998-04-08 (recorded) — Reel 009100/0622

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: Mark R. Lane; Neal C. Squibb (individual inventors)
  • Assignee: American Sports International, Ltd. d/b/a American Athletic, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not exposed in available source data
  • Context: Initial inventor→employer assignment, executed 3 days pre-filing.

• 2002-06-26 (executed) / 2002-07-31 (recorded) — Reel 013128/0233

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (Security Agreement)
  • Assignor: American Sports International, Ltd. d/b/a American Athletic, Inc.
  • Assignee: Heller Financial, Inc. (Illinois)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in available source data
  • Context: Securitization — AAI pledges the portfolio as collateral to a commercial lender.

• 2004-06-15 (executed) / 2004-07-13 (recorded) — Reel 014836/0884

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: American Sports International, Ltd. d/b/a American Athletic, Inc.
  • Assignee: Russell Corporation (Georgia)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in available source data
  • Context: Asset acquisition — Russell contracted to buy AAI's assets for $13 million, announced 2004-06-15.

• 2004-06-24 (executed) / 2005-01-14 (recorded) — Reel 015571/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Russell Corporation
  • Assignee: Russell Asset Management, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in available source data
  • Context: Internal reorganization — transfer into Russell's asset-management/financing subsidiary.

• 2006-06-30 (executed) / 2006-07-06 (recorded) — Reel 017882/0466

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement
  • Assignor: Russell Asset Management, Inc.
  • Assignee: Bank of America, N.A. (Georgia)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in available source data
  • Context: Securitization — collateral pledge supporting Russell's credit facility.

• 2006-08-24 (executed) / 2006-09-12 (recorded) — Reel 018235/0499

  • Conveyance: Release by Secured Party
  • Assignor: Bank of America, N.A.
  • Assignee: Russell Asset Management, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not exposed in available source data
  • Context: Release of the preceding security interest (lien cleared).

• 2006-12-19 (executed) / 2007-01-17 (recorded) — Reel 018757/0976

  • Conveyance: Merger
  • Assignor: Russell Asset Management, Inc.
  • Assignee: Russell Corporation (Georgia)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in available source data
  • Context: Internal reorganization — asset-management subsidiary merged back into the parent. (Note: Fruit of the Loom/Berkshire's August 2006 acquisition of Russell was a stock purchase and generated no patent-record assignment.)

• 2008-12-31 (executed) / 2009-03-11 (recorded) — Reel 022390/0327

  • Conveyance: Change of Name and Conversion of Corporate Form
  • Assignor: Russell Corporation
  • Assignee: Russell Brands, LLC (Alabama)
  • Correspondent: not exposed in available source data
  • Context: Change of name / corporate-form conversion only — no change in beneficial ownership.

Non-assignment record events (for completeness, not transfers): Certificate of Correction 1999-08-24; maintenance-fee payments 2002-06-12 (4 yr) and 2006-03-24 (8 yr); entity-status change 2004-12-05/06 (small entity → large entity); maintenance-fee reminder 2010-10-25; lapse 2011-03-23; expiration recorded 2011-05-10 for non-payment under 37 CFR 1.362.

No assignment is recorded after the 2009-03-11 change of name. The current recorded owner is Russell Brands, LLC.

---

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5885189
    1997 : Filed Oct 31 by American Athletic
         : Inventors Lane and Squibb assign to company
    1999 : Patent issued Mar 23
    2002 : Security interest to Heller Financial
    2004 : AAI assets sold to Russell Corporation
         : Moved into Russell Asset Management Inc
    2006 : Security agreement with Bank of America
         : Released by Bank of America
         : Merged back into Russell Corporation
    2008 : Renamed Russell Brands LLC
    2011 : Lapsed for unpaid maintenance fees

---

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present.
Every assignee in the chain is an operating company or a commercial lender: American Sports International/AAI (manufacturer), Russell Corporation (NYSE: RML, branded athletic goods), Russell Asset Management, Inc. (Russell's wholly-owned financing subsidiary), Russell Brands, LLC (operating successor), with Heller Financial and Bank of America holding only security interests (reel 013128/0233 and reel 017882/0466). There is no "IP/Patents/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures" assignee and no single-purpose LLC. Russell Asset Management, Inc. is the one name that sounds like a holding shell, but the record defeats that reading: it was a wholly-owned Russell entity used for secured financing and was merged back into Russell Corporation (reel 018757/0976).

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present.
No assignee matches any public NPE list. The chain contains American Sports International/AAI, Russell Corporation, Russell Asset Management Inc., Russell Brands LLC, plus Heller Financial and Bank of America as secured parties. None appear on Unified Patents / RPX / Patent Progress high-frequency-plaintiff rosters.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear (not determinable from available data).
The correspondent of record is not carried in the legal-events feed used here, so recurrence cannot be confirmed or excluded. This is the one signal that requires direct Assignment Center inspection of reels 009100/0622, 013128/0233, 014836/0884, 015571/0001, 017882/0466, 018235/0499, 018757/0976, 022390/0327. Absent that pull, I do not infer recurrence.

4. Cascading transfers — not present.
There are several recorded links between 2004 and 2009, but they are not a chain of unrelated LLCs. They are one corporate family's sequence — an operating-company asset acquisition (reel 014836/0884), an internal transfer into a financing subsidiary (reel 015571/0001), a lender security agreement and release (reels 017882/0466 and 018235/0499), a merger back into the parent (reel 018757/0976), and a pure name change (reel 022390/0327). There is no evidence of differing principals or shared shell addresses across unrelated entities.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present.
No infringement suit naming US 5,885,189 was located. The 2004 transfers were driven by a business acquisition, not by litigation; the patent lapsed in 2011.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present.
AAI was sold as a going concern in a $13M negotiated asset purchase (announced 2004-06-15), and Russell was acquired by Fruit of the Loom/Berkshire Hathaway in 2006. No Chapter 7/11 sale of this patent appears in the record.

7. Privateering — not present.
No evidence that Russell (or any operating assignee) transferred the patent to an NPE to assert against competitors. The patent stayed inside the Russell/Fruit of the Loom/Berkshire corporate family until it expired.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present.
The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at an operating company (Russell Brands, LLC) and then at expiration for non-payment of maintenance fees.

---

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The entire chain is an operating-company ownership sequence — inventors → American Sports International/AAI (reel 009100/0622) → Russell Corporation, via a $13M asset acquisition on 2004-06-15 (reel 014836/0884) → internal moves to Russell Asset Management, Inc. (reel 015571/0001), a lender security agreement and its release (reels 017882/0466 and 018235/0499), a merger back into the parent (reel 018757/0976), and a pure name change to Russell Brands, LLC (reel 022390/0327). Zero of the eight NPE signals is present, and the current owner is a Berkshire Hathaway/Fruit of the Loom subsidiary that actually manufactures gymnastics apparatus. The only caveat to the label is that I found no assertion/litigation — this is an operating-company chain, and the patent lapsed in 2011 for non-payment of maintenance fees rather than ending at a defensive aggregator, so the "assertion" prong of the label is unmet and the substantive finding is simply not an NPE.

Verify directly:

• USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search property US 5,885,189; pull correspondents on reels 014836/0884, 015571/0001, 018757/0976, 022390/0327)
• Legacy assignment index — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html
• Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5885189A](/patent/US5885189A)/en
• Related CIP — US 6,077,195 (filed 1998-08-18, same priority date, same owner family)

I'll verify the patent and its citations against USPTO/patent databases, then analyze each reference claim-by-claim.

Let me pull details on the related prior-art documents surfaced, including the reference cited within the sole citation and the "reflex mechanism" beam.

Let me verify the front-page "References Cited" section directly from the patent document.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 5,885,189 "Balance beam"

Building on the verification brief and litigation summary already generated, this section addresses only the prior-art question: the citation set for US 5,885,189 and what each reference can and cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

---

1. USPTO record check — exact number 5,885,189

The number resolves to the correct, single patent; no sibling number was substituted:

Applicable § 102 regime: The application was filed 1997-10-31 (pre-AIA). The critical date for pre-AIA § 102(b) is therefore 1996-10-31. Every reference discussed below predates that date.

---

2. The complete citation set — three distinct tiers

A key finding: there is only one front-page citation, but the patent cites a second reference inside the body of the specification, and a third highly relevant reference appears in the "similar documents" neighborhood without being cited at all. These must not be conflated.

This distinction matters: the earlier summary correctly warned that US 5,037,086 "should not be described as cited prior art for this patent." That remains true and is reiterated here.

---

3. Tier 1 — US 3,990,697 A (the only front-page citation)

Full citation

US 3,990,697 A, "Balance beam with a resilient coating." Inventor: Richard Reuther (Oppau, Germany). Assignee: Olympic Spieth Anderson Limited (Orillia, Canada). Appl. No. 550,622, filed 1975-02-18; patented 1976-11-09. Int. Cl. A63B 1/00; U.S. Cl. 272/111. 7 claims. (Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3990697 ; https://patents.justia.com/patent/[3990697](/patent/3990697))

Brief description

A gymnastics balance beam whose inventive point is the top-surface construction: a resilient coating/padding (11) on the beam, overlaid by a more rigid covering (14) (wood or plastic), with the edge portions of the coating made harder than the interior so the beam's supporting surface flexes uniformly across its width. The support structure illustrated (Fig. 1) is expressly a carry-over ("similar to that shown in the afore-mentioned U.S. Pat. No. 3,510,129"): a pair of split legs 2, leg pads 3, an adjusting sleeve mechanism 4, telescoping adjusting rods 5, 6, and pivotal connectors 7, 8 allowing the beam to be raised and lowered.

Inventive core of US 3,990,697 = surface padding and its stability trade-off. It is not a reflex/impact-absorption beam in the '189 sense, and it contains no internal beam-mounted spring mechanism.

§ 102 anticipation analysis — claim by claim

Result: US 3,990,697 does not anticipate any of claims 1–9, read as a whole. Its disclosure is missing the entire structural core of claim 1.

Claim 1 element chart against US 3,990,697:

Because claim 1 fails, all dependent claims 2–9 fail as anticipations, since each incorporates claim 1's elements by dependency. Any attempt to map:

• claim 3 ("legs are length adjustable") onto the telescoping rods 5/6, or
• claim 4 ("beam member is slightly resilient") onto the resilient coating 11,

would still have to find the balance of claim 1 in the same reference — and it is not there.

Correct characterization: US 3,990,697 is § 102(b) prior art in date only (patented 1976-11-09, well over one year before the 1997-10-31 filing). It is best used as § 103 background art for (i) the generic "balance beam with legs and height adjustment" environment, and (ii) the general concept of a beam with some resilience in it (relevant context for claim 4). It supplies no teaching of the horizontal-sliding clevis/spring mount that defines '189.

---

4. Tier 2 — US 3,554,585 (cited inside the specification)

Full citation

U.S. Pat. No. 3,554,585, "Locking device for gymnastic apparatus or the like." Cited in the '189 description: "Both the snap lock 74 and the spin lock 78 are old in the gymnastics art as typically shown in U.S. Pat. No. 3,554,585." (Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US3554585A](/patent/US3554585A)/en)

⚠️ Date caveat: I did not independently confirm the exact issue date in this session — the Google Patents snippet I retrieved showed the specification but not the [45] date line. The number is in the 3,554,xxx range, consistent with issuance in early 1971, but I am flagging the precise month/day as unverified rather than asserting it. What is certain: it substantially predates 1996-10-31 and is therefore § 102(b)-eligible.

Brief description

A locking device for telescoping tubular members on gymnastic apparatus (illustrated on a parallel bar). A tubular member 18 receives a slidable piston 20. An opening 26 in the tube wall is aligned with a bored support 28; a threaded bushing 32 receives a threaded shaft 36 with a tapered inner end 38 and a handle 40. Advancing the shaft through the openings binds the telescoping members together; the assembly is removable for repair/replacement. A second opening 42 may be provided.

§ 102 anticipation analysis

Significance — an applicant admission. The sentence quoting US 3,554,585 is an express concession that the snap lock and spin lock height-adjustment hardware is "old in the gymnastics art." Under § 103 this is powerful: it strips any presumption of novelty from the locking/holding aspect of claim 7 and pushes the patentable weight of claims 7–9 onto the sleeve (claim 8) and especially the permanently-compressed assist spring bearing part of the beam's weight (claim 9) — neither of which appears in US 3,554,585 or in US 3,990,697.

---

5. Tier 3 — Uncited but relevant art (do not call these "citations")

5a. US 5,037,086 A — the closest prior art on the reflex concept

Full citation: US 5,037,086 A, "Balance beam with reflex mechanism." Inventor: Vincent T. Strand (Ames, IA). Assignee: American Sports International, Ltd. (Jefferson, IA) — the same assignee as '189. Appl. No. 516,808, filed 1990-04-30; patented 1991-08-06. 12 claims. U.S. Cl. 482/34. (Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5037086 ; http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5037086.html)

Description: Brackets 38 fixed to the beam's bottom surface have angularly disposed slots 44; a transverse pin 46 is secured to the upper ends 48 of the leg struts and rides in the slots; a spring pin 54 and compression spring 56 on the bracket yieldingly hold the pin at the top of the slots. On impact the pin travels down the slots, the beam drops to a slightly lower horizontal position, and the spring's recovery "imparts some impetus to the gymnast."

§ 102 / § 103 analysis:

Because claim 1 requires the slidably mounted intermediate block between two end blocks with the resilient element on the beam-center side, US 5,037,086 does not anticipate claim 1 or any claim. But it is the single most dangerous § 103 reference, because it is the same-field, same-assignee antecedent teaching the identical objective (reflex/impact absorption with return impetus) by a different mechanism. A challenger would argue it renders obvious the substitution of a linear-slide block for the slot-and-pin arrangement. The '189 background even tacitly distinguishes itself from this class of art ("do not stay constant at any height adjustment, and get more flexible at lower heights") — an implicit acknowledgement that reflex beams were known.

Corroboration it was known to the family: the later, related US 6,168,549 (Leg assembly for balance beam, American Sports International) expressly states that "Reflex mechanisms to absorb the weight of the impact on the beam, such as U.S. Pat. No. 5,037,086 by Strand, are well known…" (http://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat6168549.html).

5b. US 3,510,129 A — background art for the leg/height-adjustment environment

Full citation: US 3,510,129 A, "Adjustable height balance beam," inventor Reuther, patented May 1970 (as listed in the D'1059 front page: "3510129 | May 1970 | Reuther"). It is cited by US 3,990,697 (not by '189) for a "horizontal balance beam … having a supporting leg assembly which is so arranged to leave the area below the beam clear," with a height-adjusting mechanism. Relevance to '189 is limited to the generic adjustable-height-beam context; no § 102 anticipation of any claim. (Confirming snippet: https://patents.justia.com/patent/D1071059)

---

6. Bottom-line § 102 / § 103 matrix

No single reference of record is a § 102 anticipation of any claim of US 5,885,189. The claim set survives on the strength of the combination: (i) a horizontal-sliding intermediate block captured between two beam-mounted end blocks, (ii) a resilient element positioned on the beam-center side so that deflection drives the block toward the center (claims 1, 4, 6), and the secondary features of (iii) the pin-penetration-limiting sleeve (claim 8) and (iv) the permanently compressed leg assist spring (claim 9). None of the four references above — cited or uncited — discloses any of (i), (iii) or (iv).

---

7. Data-quality and drafting flags (recorded, not corrected)

• Inventor-name discrepancy in a secondary database. EveryPatent's US 6,168,549 listing cites "5885189 | Mar., 1999 | Lang et al. | 482/38." The authoritative record for '189 names Lane and Squibb. This appears to be a typographical error in that third-party database; I am flagging it rather than silently correcting it.
• Typo in the '189 claim as published. Claim 1 recites "an intermediate block sidably mounted" (for "slidably"). It is preserved as written, per the literal-interpretation rule; the certificate of correction recorded 1999-08-24 may or may not address it (the correction's substance was not verifiable in this session).
• "one or each" in claim 1 ("to one end of said beam and to one or each of said legs") remains an unusual alternative-expression worth noting for any construction.
• Unverified items stated as such: the exact issue date of US 3,554,585; the contents of the 1999 certificate of correction; and whether the front-page "References Cited" list as captured is complete (the authoritative full text shows a single citation, US 3,990,697, and I found no additional front-page reference).

I'll verify the details of the prior-art references cited on the patent page before building the § 103 combinations.

I have the key reflex-mechanism reference. Let me pull details on the height-adjustment and locking references.

Let me confirm the adjustable-height leg reference details.

Obviousness Analysis — US 5,885,189 ("Balance Beam") under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. This builds on the verification and litigation briefs already generated for this file. It applies the Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) framework as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), using only the references in the Prior Art / Citations / Similar Documents sections of the Google Patents record (plus the two prior-art references the patent's own specification expressly admits). All claim language is quoted as published on the page, including the typographical "sidably" for "slidably." No claim term has been auto-corrected.

---

1. The reference set actually available

The page's "Patent Citations" section lists one reference. The "Similar Documents" section supplies the rest. Only those with a pre-1997-10-31 date can be prior art; everything in "Cited By" post-dates the '189 filing and is not available.

Two critical flags before the analysis:

1. US 5,037,086 is the most material reference on the page and is not a listed citation of '189. It is assigned to American Sports International, Ltd. — the same original assignee as '189 — so the applicant is not plausibly unaware of it. The examiner allowed claim 1 over only US 3,990,697, which discloses nothing about the leg-mount mechanism. The resulting patent is therefore unusually exposed on § 103.
2. Applicant's own admissions (MPEP § 2129): the '189 background states that prior reflex beams "do not stay constant at any height adjustment, and get more flexible at lower heights," and the spec states that the snap lock 74 and spin lock 78 "are old in the gymnastics art as typically shown in U.S. Pat. No. 3,554,585." These admissions supply both prior art and motivation.

---

2. Level of ordinary skill (POSITA)

A bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering (or equivalent practical training) plus 2–4 years designing gymnastics or athletic apparatus — or, alternatively, 5+ years of hands-on design/manufacture of commercial gymnastics equipment. Such a person knows: telescoping leg locks and pins (per '585), spring-biased leg mounts, pin-and-slot vs. shaft-and-linear-bearing constraint, and the FIG-mandated 100–125 cm beam height range.

---

3. What US 5,037,086 (Strand) discloses

Retrieved directly (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5037086; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/2d/90/68/d61f28de2eb23b/US5037086.pdf):

• elongated rigid beam 10, top surface 12, bottom surface 14;
• legs 16 = T-shaped members 20 (floor-engaging bars 22 + upright strut 24) with upper ends 48;
• telescopic brace 26 (members 28/30, stop bolts 32) pivotally connected to the beam bottom at 34 and to the leg at 36 — this is the claimed "elongated link pivotally secured by its ends to one end of said beam and to... said legs";
• two brackets 38 secured to the beam's bottom surface, U-shaped with opposite sides 42 straddling the strut top — i.e., a clevis-like yoke;
• angularly disposed parallel slots 44 in the bracket sides with a transverse pin 46, secured to the leg upper end 48, slidably mounted in the slots;
• spring pin 54 + compression spring 56 mounted on bracket flange 50, engaging the leg's upper end to yieldingly hold the beam in a first horizontal position and permit movement to a second, lower position under gymnast load;
• a locking pin 58 to limit spring compression;
• brackets 38 include "a slide track movably secured to the beam and adapted for selective longitudinal positioning," and "when the height of the beam is set, the brackets 38 are rigid with the beam."

That is functionally the entire reflex mount of '189 — except that Strand's path of travel is along angularly-disposed slots (described as the leg end moving downwardly), whereas '189 requires the intermediate block to slide horizontally toward the beam's center portion.

---

4. Claim 1 element mapping — primary § 103 combination

Combination A: US 5,037,086 in view of US 3,990,697, taken with applicant's background admission.

The two-element gap, and why it is bridgeable

(a) Horizontal vs. angular travel. Strand expressly calls its slots "parallel and angularly disposed" and describes the pin's travel along them. Choosing the direction of a constrained slide is a classic predictable mechanical variation (KSR, 550 U.S. at 416–17: "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious"). Strand's own bracket already translates longitudinally (horizontally) along the beam for height adjustment. And the motivation is supplied by applicant's own admission of the defect being cured: prior beams "get more flexible at lower heights," i.e., the reflex is coupled to leg angle/height. Decoupling the compression axis to a fixed horizontal guide with a predictable result is exactly what KSR denominates an obvious design choice, and the '189 spec itself says the result (constant-height reflex) is the expected consequence: "the horizontal disposition of the beam stays constant at any height adjustment."

(b) "Mounted within" the beam / base plate (also claim 5). Enclosing the mechanism in a hollow beam is a design choice with predictable benefits ('189 touts a beam "very quiet in operation"; the spec says plate 38 is bolted to the beam bottom "by means of bolts or the like"). Substituting a bolted base plate with a clearance opening for Strand's bolted bracket is an ordinary manufacturing expedient; note Strand's bracket 38 already slides on a track and is bolted to the bottom surface.

(c) Two end blocks + shaft-and-linear-bearing carriage. Replacing pin-in-slot with a guided block on ¾-inch ground/polished shafts and linear bearings is the known technique of constrained linear motion, applied to a known function (guiding a spring-biased carriage). KSR at 417.

Bottom line on claim 1: a prima facie § 103 case exists, and it is moderate-to-strong but contestable — the contested issue is the horizontal-slide reorientation. Note this is a § 103, not § 102, case: nothing on the page anticipates claim 1 in a single reference.

---

5. Per-claim breakdown for the dependents

Because claim 1 is the sole independent claim, a sustained § 103 rejection of claim 1 carries the rest of the patent with it.

---

6. Motivation to combine — stated rationales

1. Same field, same problem. '086 and '697/'129 are all gymnastic balance-beam art addressing the identical problem — absorbing gymnast impact without sacrificing stability. KSR at 415 ("familiar elements... according to known methods").
2. The '086 abstract itself states the need the '189 claims to satisfy: "The rigid beam absorbs little if any of the impact of the gymnast, and provides no spring."
3. Applicant's admitted deficiency supplies the "why." The '189 background admits prior reflex beams "do not stay constant at any height adjustment, and get more flexible at lower heights." A POSITA reading that problem and '086 would be motivated to decouple the reflex path from the leg's angular position — i.e., to fix the compression axis horizontally. This is the "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" situation of KSR at 421.
4. Sub-combination already assembled. '086 supplies the beam, the end brackets rigid with the beam, the slidably mounted spring-biased member, the pivotal leg connection and the pivotal link — the only "new" work is choosing the constraint direction and housing it.
5. Height-adjustment sub-combination is conceded art. '129 ('adjustable height'), '585 (telescoping locks, expressly conceded in the spec), and '086's own telescopic brace + stop bolts cover claims 3 and 7–8.
6. Predictable-variation and known-technique rationales (KSR at 416–17, 421) cover the horizontal guide orientation and the shaft/linear-bearing carriage.

---

7. The patentee's best rebuttals, and how they fare

---

8. Evidentiary gaps and what would change the answer

• US 3,510,129 text not retrieved. I rely on US 3,990,697's description of it ("In U.S. Pat. No. 3,510,129 a horizontal balance beam is disclosed having a supporting leg assembly which is so arranged to leave the area below the beam clear... The beam is made of solid wood") and its listing as "Adjustable height balance beam." Its leg geometry (relevant to claim 2) should be pulled directly.
• Claim 2's obtuse-angle "knee." No confirmed reference in the listed set. This is the limitation most likely to survive a § 103 challenge absent new art.
• Claim 9's assist spring. No reference in the listed set. Needs a separate counterbalance/spring-assisted-telescoping-column reference.
• The 1999-08-24 certificate of correction. The record shows a correction was recorded for this patent; the published claim text retains "sidably." Cross-reference flag: the earlier brief treated "sidably" as the operative text. If the certificate corrected claim 1 (e.g., "sidably" → "slidably"), the § 103 analysis should be re-run on the corrected claim text as printed — the correction does not change substance, but confirm it before relying on the literal wording.
• The "one or each of said legs" alternative in claim 1 should be evaluated alternative-by-alternative in any rejection (each alternative must be anticipated or obvious).

---

9. Conclusion

The intellectually honest bottom line: the listed prior art does not contain a single-reference anticipation of claim 1, and the patent's true point of novelty appears to be the horizontal sliding intermediate block coupled to a depending clevis — a point the examiner never tested, because the only citation on the face (US 3,990,697) is directed to a resilient coating, not to the support mechanism. The most dangerous reference for this patent is US 5,037,086, which shares the same original assignee, discloses substantially the whole reflex sub-combination, and was never applied. A § 103 challenge mounted on that reference plus the applicant's own admissions would be a serious one, particularly for claims 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5885189/en · https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/56/31/ef/a377ffa10e72af/US5885189.pdf · https://patents.google.com/patent/US5037086 · https://patents.justia.com/patent/[5037086](/patent/5037086) · https://patents.google.com/patent/US3990697 · https://patents.justia.com/patent/[3990697](/patent/3990697) · https://www.freepatentsonline.com/3554585.html · https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6168549](/patent/6168549) · https://patents.justia.com/patent/[6077195](/patent/6077195)

This is a technical/legal analysis prepared from the patent record and public patent databases, not a legal opinion. It cannot substitute for a full invalidity search (including non-patent literature, catalogues, and public-use evidence), a claim-construction analysis, or advice of counsel.