Invalidity dossier
US 7198416
Added 10/23/2026, 12:01:12 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
US 7,198,416 B2 — "Optical Combiner Device"
Bibliographic data (from the supplied page): Application US 11/044,475; filed 2005-01-27; priority date 2004-02-04; granted/published 2007-04-03. Inventors: Curtis A. Ray, Eric B. Grann, Brian C. Peters. Original assignee: Omron Network Products LLC; current assignee listed as Omron Management Center of America Inc. Legal status listed as expired (anticipated expiration 2025-01-27). Classification: G02B 6/42 family (coupling light guides with opto-electronic elements).
Purpose: The text describes the invention as an optical multiplexing device for optical communications that spatially combines multi-wavelength light from several lasers into one optical fiber, stated to be suited to wavelength division multiplexing (WDM/DWDM/CWDM) in fiber-optic data-communications and telecommunications. It frames the need as avoiding prior-art dielectric filters (which require alignment) and expensive waveguides.
Plain-language scope: The device uses plastic-mold injection to form a compact part that merges multiple optical signals into a single fiber. A single molded device can embody the invention, though the text says two or more parts may be combined to meet certain environmental conditions. The summary distinguishes it from the prior art of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,377,287), which combines 19 fibers with 19 collimating lenses and a Fresnel focusing lens; the excerpt states Lee et al. fails to provide isolation from unwanted reflections or uniform coupling efficiency between each input and the output, and that the present invention uses a separate radial sector of the focusing lens (sentence truncated in the excerpt). Prior-art keywords on the page: array, optical combiner, lasers, optical, collimating lenses.
Not established by the excerpt: The claims themselves, the abstract, the detailed description and drawings, and any specific structural limitations or element relationships are absent (the excerpt is cut off mid-sentence). The excerpt therefore does not establish the precise scope of any claim, the number or arrangement of inputs, or performance figures.
Generated 10/23/2026, 12:10:48 AM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7198416. 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.