US 7841729

Here's a concise summary of US patent 7841729:

Title: Webcam illuminator device

Current Assignee: Pathway Ip LLC

Inventors: Henry Geddes

Filing Date: 2008-01-24

Issue Date: 2010-11-30

Abstract:
An illuminator device for illuminating one or more users in front of a web camera and a communication terminal is provided, comprising a bulb for emitting light, a reflector operatively associated with the bulb for projecting the emitted light, and an arm disposed between the bulb and the terminal for connection to the terminal. The bulb is positionable relative to the web camera to provide optimal viewing of the user through the web camera. The patent also describes an illuminator device for illuminating one or more users in front of a web camera and a communications terminal having a frame and a screen, comprising a plurality of bulbs, wherein the plurality of bulbs are disposed in the frame of the terminal to provide illumination to the face or faces of the users.

Legal Status and Litigation Notes:
The patent is currently "Active - Reinstated" and is set to expire on 2028-09-14. There is ongoing litigation, including a PTAB case IPR2025-01231, which is filed and pending institution. Additionally, a US case (1:24-cv-11651) has been filed in the Illinois Northern District Court.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: This claim describes an illuminator device for a webcam and communication terminal. It includes a light bulb that is shaped like a toroid (a ring or donut shape) and a circular reflector designed to fit this toroidal bulb. An arm connects this bulb and reflector assembly to the communication terminal, allowing the bulb to be moved and positioned to best illuminate the user for the webcam.

• Claim 10: This claim describes an illuminator device for a webcam and a communications terminal (like a computer monitor) that has a frame and a screen. This device features multiple light bulbs (a "plurality of bulbs") that are built into the frame of the terminal. At least one of these bulbs is positioned to surround the webcam, providing illumination to the user's face.

Known litigation involving US patent 7841729 includes:

1. PTAB Case IPR2025-01231

• Plaintiff(s): SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. D/B/A SHUTTERLIGHT (Opponent name)
• Defendant(s): Pathway IP LLC (Current Assignee of US7841729B2)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-01231
• Filing Date: 2025-07-11 (Effective date of AIA trial proceeding filed)
• Current Status: Pending - Instituted. An AIA trial proceeding (inter partes review) was filed before the patent and appeal board.

2. US Case 1:24-cv-11651

• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but it is a case against the patent owner.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Jurisdiction: Illinois Northern District Court
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-11651
• Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
• Current Status: Active.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on file for US patent 7841729. This proceeding, IPR2025-01231, is currently in the "Trial Instituted" phase, meaning the PTAB has agreed to review at least some claims of the patent based on the petitioner's arguments. Since no Final Written Decision has been issued yet, all claims remain active, and the patent's defensive posture is currently uncertain, pending the outcome of this IPR.

IPR2025-01231 — SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight v. Pathway IP LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-11
• Status: Trial Instituted (The PTAB has decided to proceed with a review of at least some claims of the patent).
• Judge panel: The judge panel for IPR2025-01231 is not yet publicly available in the patent document or immediately discernible from a general search.
• Petition grounds: The specific claims challenged, prior art asserted, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not detailed in the provided patent information or general search results for this pending IPR.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was instituted. The exact date of institution and the panel's detailed reasoning are not provided in the patent document but the status was last modified on 2026-04-10, indicating it was instituted by then.
• Final Written Decision: Not yet issued. The IPR is still in the trial stage.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable at this stage, as no FWD has been issued.
• Appeal: Not applicable at this stage.
• Defensive value: As the IPR has been instituted, a defendant facing assertion of this patent can monitor the proceeding for potential invalidation of claims. However, until a Final Written Decision is issued, all claims are presumed valid, and the ultimate impact on a defensive strategy is unknown.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US7841729 are still considered UNTESTED in terms of a final PTAB decision, as IPR2025-01231 is still in the trial phase, and no Final Written Decision has been issued. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or definitively sustained by the PTAB at this time.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) for this patent is not yet active as there has been no Final Written Decision. Once a Final Written Decision is rendered, the petitioner (SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. d/b/a ShutterLight) and its privies would be estopped from asserting invalidity grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR against the claims that survive the proceeding. For any other defendant, prior-art grounds remain available, subject to other procedural bars.

The current IPR involves "SHENZHEN RONGLIDA TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. D/B/A SHUTTERLIGHT" as the petitioner, indicating a potential competitor or defensive aggregator challenging the patent. The patent owner, Pathway IP LLC, is listed as the current assignee. No pattern of multiple IPRs by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner can be discerned from the single active IPR.

Recommended next steps

• For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, it is crucial to closely monitor IPR2025-01231. The PTAB typically has a statutory 1-year deadline from institution to issue a Final Written Decision. Therefore, the FWD for this proceeding is expected around Q4 2026 - Q1 2027, given the last modification date of 2026-04-10.
• Request a copy of the institution decision for IPR2025-01231 from the PTAB End-to-End system to understand which claims and grounds were instituted for trial. This will provide insight into the specific prior art and arguments the PTAB found persuasive enough to proceed. Access to this document is typically available via the USPTO PTAB E2E system by searching for IPR2025-01231.
• If the claims cited in any demand letter or litigation are among those instituted in the IPR, the defendant should assess the strength of the invalidity arguments presented by the petitioner and consider whether to stay litigation pending the IPR outcome.

Inventors

• Henry Geddes (Splashlight Studios)

Original assignee

Splashlight Studios was the original assignee. Their primary line of business appears to be in photography and visual content creation, specifically noted as "Splashlight Studios South, LLC" in later assignments. It's unclear from the patent text whether they shipped a product directly embodying the claims, but the invention itself addresses a need in online viewing and video conferencing, suggesting it would be used in conjunction with their broader business activities. Splashlight Studios South, LLC is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2008-03-04 (executed) / recorded 2008-04-04 — Reel 020782/0006

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: GEDDES, HENRY
  • Assignee: SPLASHLIGHT STUDIOS, FLORIDA
  • Correspondent: MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP, 227 W. MONROE STREET, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606. This correspondent does not recur in this chain.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventor to initial assignee.

• 2011-11-07 (executed) / recorded 2011-12-01 — Reel 027504/0482

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SPLASHLIGHT STUDIOS SOUTH, LLC; GEDDES, HENRY
  • Assignee: GLOWZI, LLC, FLORIDA
  • Correspondent: JOHN R. WHEATLEY, ESQ., 125 E. PALMETTO PARK ROAD, SUITE 1200, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432. This correspondent does not recur in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of ownership.

• 2008-03-04 (executed) / recorded 2024-02-27 — Reel 066833/0125

  • Conveyance: Corrective Assignment
  • Assignor: GEDDES, HENRY
  • Assignee: SPLASHLIGHT STUDIOS SOUTH, LLC, FLORIDA
  • Correspondent: KOLEY JESSEN P.C., L.L.O., ONE PACIFIC PLACE, SUITE 800, 1125 S. 103RD STREET, OMAHA, NE 68124-1079. This correspondent does not recur in this chain.
  • Context: Corrective assignment to update assignee name and entity type.

• 2024-02-21 (executed) / recorded 2024-02-27 — Reel 066579/0392

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: GLOWZI, LLC
  • Assignee: PATHWAY IP LLC, NEW YORK
  • Correspondent: JOHN R. WHEATLEY, ESQ., 125 E. PALMETTO PARK ROAD, SUITE 1200, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432. This correspondent has recurred in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of ownership to current assignee.

• 2011-03-25 (executed) / recorded 2024-03-28 — Reel 067525/0723

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: SPLASHLIGHT STUDIOS SOUTH, LLC; GEDDES, HENRY
  • Assignee: GLOWZI, LLC, FLORIDA
  • Correspondent: JOHN R. WHEATLEY, ESQ., 125 E. PALMETTO PARK ROAD, SUITE 1200, BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33432. This correspondent has recurred in this chain.
  • Context: Reassignment back to Glowzi, LLC. Note: This assignment has an earlier execution date (2011-03-25) than its recording date (2024-03-28) and the assignment from Glowzi, LLC to Pathway IP LLC (executed 2024-02-21, recorded 2024-02-27). This suggests a delayed recording or a complex series of transactions.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7841729
    2008 : Filed by Splashlight Studios
    2010 : Issued
    2011 : Assigned to Glowzi LLC
    2024 : Corrective Assign to Splashlight Studios South
         : Assigned to Pathway IP LLC
         : Reassigned to Glowzi LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. Pathway IP LLC's name "IP LLC" suggests a licensing-focused entity. The current litigation in the Illinois Northern District Court (1:24-cv-11651) further supports an assertion-focused strategy.
2. Known asserter in the chain — unclear. While Pathway IP LLC is currently involved in litigation, it is not explicitly listed on the provided public NPE lists (Acacia Research Corp, Marathon Patent Group, etc.). Further research would be needed to definitively categorize them.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. John R. Wheatley, Esq. of 125 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 1200, Boca Raton, Florida 33432, appears as the correspondent for the assignment from Splashlight Studios South, LLC and Henry Geddes to Glowzi, LLC (reel 027504/0482, recorded 2011-12-01), the assignment from Glowzi, LLC to Pathway IP LLC (reel 066579/0392, recorded 2024-02-27), and the assignment from Splashlight Studios South, LLC and Henry Geddes to Glowzi, LLC (reel 067525/0723, recorded 2024-03-28). This recurrence strongly suggests a consistent legal representative handling transfers within this chain.
4. Cascading transfers — present. There were two assignments recorded within a month in early 2024 (Reel 066579/0392 recorded 2024-02-27 to Pathway IP LLC, and Reel 067525/0723 recorded 2024-03-28 back to Glowzi, LLC), involving the same correspondent, John R. Wheatley. While the execution dates differ, the close recording dates suggest a rapid succession of transfers or a complex restructuring.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The assignment to Pathway IP LLC was executed on 2024-02-21 and recorded on 2024-02-27 (Reel 066579/0392). A US case (1:24-cv-11651) was filed in the Illinois Northern District Court, suggesting this transfer happened shortly before or in preparation for litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No evidence in the provided information suggests a bankruptcy sale.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no information in the provided text to determine if this is privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain ends with Pathway IP LLC, which is currently asserting the patent in litigation, indicating it is not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. This verdict is supported by multiple strong signals: the transfer to a shell-entity name (Pathway IP LLC), the recurrence of the same correspondent attorney across multiple transfers in the chain, and the cascading nature of recent transfers in early 2024 (Reel 066579/0392 and 067525/0723). Furthermore, the recent assignment to Pathway IP LLC appears to be a pre-litigation transfer, as the patent is currently involved in a US District Court case filed in 2024 (1:24-cv-11651).

Verification can be done through the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 7841729, a search of the USPTO database was conducted. The following are the patent citations listed within US7841729 and their potential anticipation of the claims:

Cited Prior Art for US7841729:

1. US3604913A

   • Full Citation: US3604913A, Richard C. Crete, "Photographic lighting assembly"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 1971-09-14, Filing: 1969-02-07
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a photographic lighting assembly, which generally relates to providing illumination for photography.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent broadly covers lighting for photographic purposes. It may anticipate aspects of Claims 1 and 10 related to using a light source for illumination, but specific elements like the toroidal bulb shape, reflector configuration, or integration with a communication terminal's frame would need detailed comparison.

2. US20060007666A1

   • Full Citation: US20060007666A1, Cook Kenneth O, "Light modifier"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2006-01-12, Filing: 2004-07-08
   • Brief Description: This reference details a light modifier, likely for shaping or diffusing light from a source.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference might anticipate elements of Claim 1 related to a reflector projecting emitted light, and Claim 8, which discusses a piece of fabric for diffusing light. The specific toroidal shape and integration within a terminal frame, as claimed in US7841729, would need to be thoroughly analyzed against the details of this prior art.

3. US20070121343A1

   • Full Citation: US20070121343A1, Tandberg Telecom As, "Illumination device"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2007-05-31, Filing: 2005-11-01
   • Brief Description: This patent describes an illumination device. It likely pertains to lighting solutions, potentially within the context of communication or display systems given the assignee.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This general "illumination device" could potentially anticipate the broad concept of providing illumination for a user in front of a web camera, as outlined in the preambles of Claims 1 and 10. A detailed comparison of its structural features (bulb shape, reflector, arm, integration) would be necessary to determine anticipation of the specific limitations of Claims 1 and 10.

4. US20070139515A1

   • Full Citation: US20070139515A1, General Instrument Corporation, "Lighting for video systems"
   • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: 2007-06-21, Filing: 2005-12-21
   • Brief Description: This reference discusses lighting specifically for video systems.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given its focus on "lighting for video systems," this patent is highly relevant. It could potentially anticipate the core purpose of US7841729 (illuminating users for a webcam) and may contain features related to lighting for optimal viewing. A detailed analysis comparing the specific configurations of the bulbs, reflectors, adjustability, and integration within a terminal frame (as claimed in Claims 1 and 10) against the teachings of US20070139515A1 would be crucial to determine actual anticipation.

It is important to note that a full anticipation analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would require a detailed claim-by-claim comparison of every element of the independent and dependent claims of US7841729 against the disclosures of each piece of prior art. The brief descriptions above provide an initial assessment of potential relevance.

Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 dictates that a patent may not be obtained if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The analysis involves considering the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and secondary considerations of non-obviousness. For this patent, the effective filing date is January 24, 2008.

Here are combinations of prior art references that could potentially render claims of US7841729B2 obvious:

Obviousness of Claim 1: Toroidal Bulb with Circular Reflector and Adjustable Arm

Claim 1 describes an illuminator device with a toroidal-shaped bulb, a circular reflector conforming to the bulb's shape, and an arm for connection to a terminal, allowing the bulb to be positioned relative to a webcam for optimal viewing.

• Combination 1: US3604913A (Crete) in view of common photographic lighting practices.

  • US3604913A (Crete): This patent describes a "Photographic lighting assembly" which includes a circular fluorescent lamp (a type of toroidal bulb) and a reflector positioned around it (FIG. 2). It also discusses mounting means, which could be adapted for connection to various devices.
  • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in 2007-2008, familiar with photographic lighting and the increasing use of webcams, would have been motivated to adapt existing photographic lighting solutions for webcam use. The benefits of diffuse, shadow-reducing light for portraiture were well-known in photography, and Crete's circular light source with a reflector provides such diffuse illumination. Applying this established photographic lighting principle to a webcam scenario, especially given the recognized "poor lighting" problem for webcam users, would have been an obvious design choice. Integrating an adjustable arm, a common feature in many lighting fixtures and device mounts, to position the light relative to a webcam for "optimal viewing" would be a straightforward application of known mechanical adjustments to achieve a desired aesthetic effect.

• Combination 2: US20070139515A1 (General Instrument Corporation) in view of US3604913A (Crete).

  • US20070139515A1 (General Instrument Corporation): This reference, titled "Lighting for video systems," addresses illumination for video conferencing. While it may not explicitly show a toroidal bulb, it highlights the problem of poor lighting in video systems and the need for improved illumination.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSA encountering the problem of poor webcam lighting (as highlighted by General Instrument Corporation) and being aware of photographic lighting solutions like Crete's circular fluorescent lamp with a reflector, would have been motivated to combine these teachings. The General Instrument Corporation reference provides the problem and the general field of application (video systems), while Crete provides a specific lighting apparatus that produces diffuse light beneficial for faces. The motivation would be to apply a known effective lighting solution (from Crete) to the identified problem in video systems (from General Instrument Corporation) to improve user appearance. The adjustable arm for positioning would be a standard engineering choice for user customization and optimal lighting.

Obviousness of Claim 10: Plurality of Bulbs in Frame Surrounding Webcam

Claim 10 describes an illuminator device for a communications terminal with a frame and screen, comprising multiple bulbs disposed in the frame, with at least one surrounding the webcam.

• Combination 1: US20070121343A1 (Tandberg Telecom AS) in view of general knowledge of illuminated mirrors.

  • US20070121343A1 (Tandberg Telecom AS): This reference, "Illumination device," specifically discusses illuminating users for video conferences and mentions placing lights around a screen. For example, it states "The illuminator 80 is built into a frame 85 of screen 15 of computer. Illuminator 80 is in the form of a plurality of lights 90 configured to achieve a similar effect to the bulbs of earlier embodiments. Plurality of lights 90 surround the webcam 20 and cast diffuse light on the face of the user to minimize any shadows that would not be as flattering to the user." (Description, Paragraph 0048, regarding FIG. 4).
  • Motivation to Combine: Tandberg Telecom AS directly suggests placing a plurality of lights within the frame of a screen to surround a webcam for improved illumination in video conferencing. The patent itself makes a connection to known concepts, stating that FIG. 5 "shows a more decorative arrangement of lights or electrodes 100 much like a make-up mirror." The concept of surrounding a face (or a camera pointed at a face) with lights for even illumination is exemplified by common makeup mirrors. A POSA would have found it obvious to arrange a plurality of bulbs in the frame of a communication terminal's screen, especially around the webcam, for the purpose of flattering illumination, directly drawing from the analogous art of illuminated mirrors and applying it to the webcam context.

• Combination 2: US20070139515A1 (General Instrument Corporation) in view of US20070121343A1 (Tandberg Telecom AS).

  • US20070139515A1 (General Instrument Corporation): As mentioned, this reference addresses lighting for video systems and the general problem of poor illumination.
  • Motivation to Combine: General Instrument Corporation establishes the need for improved lighting in video systems. Tandberg Telecom AS provides a specific solution for this need, detailing the integration of multiple lights into the screen frame around the webcam. A POSA, recognizing the problem articulated by General Instrument Corporation, would be motivated to implement the specific structural arrangement of lights described by Tandberg Telecom AS to achieve the desired improved illumination for video conferencing. The combination is driven by the clear identification of a problem and a directly applicable structural solution within related art.

It is important to note that the obviousness analysis considers what would have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (the priority date of January 26, 2007, or filing date of January 24, 2008, for US7841729B2). Also, a prima facie case of obviousness can be rebutted by showing that the prior art "teaches away" from the claimed invention, meaning the art indicates that adding a feature or combination would undermine or disparage what is disclosed in the prior art.