Invalidity dossier
US 7782234
Successive approximation analog-to-digital converter with inbuilt redundancy
Current assignee: Analog Devices Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 10:19:35 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 — US7782234B2
Title: Successive approximation analog-to-digital converter with inbuilt redundancy
Assignee: Analog Devices, Inc. (original assignee; assignment recorded from inventor Fazil Ahmad)
Key dates: Priority/filing date 2007-05-31; published as US20090109079A1 on 2009-04-30; granted 2010-08-24; status "Active" with adjusted expiration 2028-07-21. A PCT priority to PCT/IN2008/000158 (WO2008146301A2) is listed.
Purpose: The disclosure addresses shortcomings of successive-approximation-register (SAR) ADCs, which are inherently slow because an 8-bit converter needs 8 serial bit trials. Existing collaborative multi-converter techniques are limited by noise, mismatch errors between conversion engines, DNL/SNR degradation from DAC, reference, and comparator settling, and large die area; redundant bit trials also cost one bit-trial time each.
Plain-language scope: A SAR ADC uses multiple conversion engines (switched-capacitor ADCs comprising N DACs and M comparators, with M substantially greater than N) communicating with a controller. Multiple bits may be examined per bit trial. In the worked example (FIG. 2), four engines set thresholds at Vref/8, 3Vref/8, 5Vref/8, and 7Vref/8; the controller narrows the search range across trials, with overlapping search ranges providing "inbuilt redundancy" so errors from an earlier trial are corrected in a later trial. The ADC can also switch modes so converters work independently and the controller combines the results. Figures cover differential and single-ended variants, 1.5-bit-per-trial redundancy, common-mode generation, and a flash ADC.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US7782234](/patent/US7782234)/en
What the excerpt does not establish: It is an excerpt only, omitting full claim text, detailed descriptions of several figures, and any dependent-claim limitations. It does not establish claim scope, validity, enforceability, litigation history, ownership transfers, or prior-art effect. Legal status and expiration are explicitly stated as assumptions, not legal conclusions. No independent verification of dates or assignee accuracy was performed.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:33:32 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7782234. 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.