Invalidity dossier
US 7822690
Added 10/14/2026, 6:01:04 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 7,822,690 B2
Title: Paperless process for mortgage closings and other applications
Patent number / application: US 7,822,690 B2; application US 11/037,505, filed 2005-01-18.
Priority date: 2004-02-10 (listed as an assumption, not a legal conclusion).
Publication dates: Application published as US 2005/0177389 A1 on 2005-08-11; patent granted/published 2010-10-26.
Inventor(s): Paul Rakowicz and Robert Shanahan.
Assignee: Original assignee listed as "Individual"; subsequent entries list Document Processing Systems, Inc.; eMortgage Services, LLC; Citrin Holdings LLC; and Secure Ink LLC. The page states listed assignees "may be inaccurate."
Legal status: Active, with adjusted expiration listed as 2028-09-20 (described as an assumption, not a legal conclusion).
Classifications: G06Q 50/167 (real estate — closing), G06Q 10/00, G06Q 10/10, G06Q 20/3829, G06Q 20/401, G06Q 40/02, H04L 63/0428, H04L 63/0435, H04L 63/0823.
Purpose and plain-language scope (from the supplied text): The invention concerns a paperless process for mortgage closings and other applications. The prior-art keywords supplied — "electronic," "documents," "electronic document," "signing," and "mortgage closing" — indicate the subject matter involves handling and electronically signing mortgage-closing documents through networked, security-related computing arrangements (consistent with the encryption, key-management, authentication/certificate, and transaction-verification classifications listed). The excerpt does not include the claims, abstract, or detailed description, so the precise scope of coverage cannot be stated beyond these indicators.
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not set out any claim language, claim limitations, or the written description; it does not verify inventorship, ownership, or the accuracy of the assignee or legal-status listings; it does not establish validity, enforceability, patentability, or the content of any prior art; and it does not establish litigation or the meaning or effect of the related-family filings and priority links noted on the page.
Generated 10/14/2026, 6:01:11 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7822690. 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.