Invalidity dossier
US 7404644
Time-sequential colour projection
Current assignee: Sharp Corp
Added 9/16/2026, 9:30:21 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 7,404,644 B2 — "Time-sequential colour projection"
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7404644/en
Bibliographic data (from the supplied text)
- Patent number: US 7,404,644 B2
- Title: Time-sequential colour projection
- Application number: US 11/127,710
- Inventors: Allan Evans; Grant Bourhill; Marina V. Khazova
- Assignee: Sharp Corp (Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha)
- Priority date: 2004-05-12; Filed: 2005-05-12
- Published (application): US 2005/0254127 A1, 2005-11-17
- Granted/Published (patent): 2008-07-29
- Legal status: Expired – Fee Related; adjusted expiration 2026-05-05
- Classifications: notably G02B27/10, G02B27/102, G02B27/1046, G02B27/1053 (single light modulator for all colour channels), G02B27/12, G02B27/14, G02B27/149 (crossed beamsplitting surfaces, e.g. cross-dichroic cubes)
Purpose
The invention relates to a time-sequential colour projector, with applications including video/data projectors, front and rear projectors, cinema and home entertainment, head-up displays in vehicles, business and conference projectors, and miniature portable projectors.
Plain-language scope
The background explains that monochrome light valves (transmissive liquid crystal panels, reflective liquid crystal panels, micromirror devices) can produce colour either via a three-panel system (dichroic combining optics) or a time-sequential system (rapid red/green/blue illumination of one valve). The text notes drawbacks of the time-sequential approach — flicker or colour artefacts, need for fast (often costlier) light valves, and low optical efficiency since less than one-third of white light is used at any time — and of the three-panel approach, which needs three panels, colour separating/combining optics, and precise image convergence.
The excerpt then describes known alternatives (U.S. Pat. No. 5,161,042 and EP1089115) using dichroic mirrors to send red, green and blue to different angles, with microlens arrays directing colours to different pixels. It notes limits: microlenses need low f-numbers; as panels shrink, lens-to-pixel separation becomes small, while typical liquid crystal light valves sit on ~0.5 mm glass substrates, imposing a lower limit on achievable separation — so lenses may need integrating into the panel, requiring specially manufactured, costlier light valves.
What the excerpt does not establish
The supplied excerpt is incomplete: it does not include the claims, the full detailed description, or the complete wording of the "angular time-sequential colour" passage (which is cut off). Therefore the precise claimed scope cannot be determined from this text alone. No litigation, ownership-transfer, validity or prior-art conclusions are drawn here.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:03:25 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7404644. 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.