Invalidity dossier
US 6092896
Current assignee: Aspex Eyewear, Inc., Contour Optik, Inc.
Added 9/17/2026, 6:49:11 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-v4-flash
Auto-generating section 1 of 8: Patent summary…
Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Cases on file (3)
Group view →Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6092896. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
- 7:02-cv-06195; 1:10-cv-12202U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettsconcluded
Defendants: Altair Eyewear, Inc.
- 0:09-cv-61467; 0:09-cv-61468U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Floridajudgment affirmed
Defendants: Zenni Optical, LLC
- Markman opinion dated 2006-12-22
Defendants: Designers Eyewear Studio, Inc.
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.
Current assignee: Aspex Eyewear, Inc., Contour Optik, Inc.
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.
Keep exploring
More patents asserted by Aspex Eyewear, Inc.
This patent in court (3)
3 tracked lawsuits name US 6092896.