US RE42534

I am unable to provide a concise summary of US patent RE42534, including its title, assignee, inventors, filing date, issue date, abstract, and a plain-language overview of each independent claim, because I could not successfully retrieve the patent's full text, claims, or specification through web searches. My attempts to fetch the patent's content directly from USPTO and Google Patents databases did not yield the specific information for RE42534.

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets, a targeted search for "CAFC RE42534 2026 dockets" and "site:cafc.uscourts.gov RE42534 2026" did not return any specific cases related to US patent RE42534 for the year 2026. Therefore, I cannot confirm any ongoing litigation involving this patent at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for the specified period.

I am unable to find any publicly available information regarding litigation specifically involving US patent RE42534 using the current search capabilities. Comprehensive patent litigation databases such as Unified Patents Portal and PACER would typically list such cases, but direct searches for RE42534 did not yield any results at this time. Therefore, no known litigation for US patent RE42534 can be reported.

The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for US patent RE42534 as of the most recent ingest. My web searches for "PTAB RE42534", "IPR RE42534", "PGR RE42534", and "CBM RE42534" also did not surface any specific AIA trial proceedings related to this patent. While USPTO's Patent Public Search and P-TACTS (Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System) are the authoritative sources for such information, my current environment prevents direct interaction with these live search portals to retrieve patent claims or detailed PTAB case data. Therefore, I am unable to provide specific claim language or details of any PTAB proceedings, including institution decisions, final written decisions, or appeals.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent RE42534 as per the USPTO Open Data Portal API. My web search did not identify any additional or older proceedings. This means that, as of today, there is no PTAB activity on this patent, and its claims remain untested by an AIA trial. The bottom-line defensive posture this gives a defendant is that the patent's validity has not been challenged and adjudicated through the IPR/PGR/CBM process.

Strategic summary

As there are no PTAB proceedings on file for RE42534, all claims of the patent are currently UNTESTED by an AIA trial. This implies that no claims have been canceled or sustained through the PTAB process.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, since no AIA trial proceedings have been instituted or concluded, there are no estoppel bars under § 315(e)(2) for any potential petitioner (or their privies). All prior-art grounds remain available for a future challenge against this patent.

There is no pattern of PTAB activity to analyze, as no proceedings have been identified.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for RE42534, the absence of challenges is itself a signal. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, several paths are open:

• Conduct thorough prior art search: With no prior PTAB invalidity challenges, a comprehensive search for prior art could uncover grounds for a new IPR or PGR petition.
• Consider filing an IPR/PGR petition: If strong prior art is found, initiating an AIA trial (IPR or PGR, depending on the patent's effective filing date) against the asserted claims could be a viable strategy to challenge validity before the PTAB.
• Monitor for future PTAB activity: Keep a watch on the patent for any newly filed IPRs, PGRs, or CBMs, as these would significantly alter the defensive landscape. The USPTO's P-TACTS system would be the primary resource for this monitoring.

Inventors

• Andrew C. Clark (Employer: Sensortech Corporation)
• David W. Topham (Employer: Sensortech Corporation)

No unusual patterns were determinable from the available information.

Original assignee

Sensortech Corporation is the original assignee named on the issued patent. Sensortech Corporation's primary line of business appears to be the development and manufacture of moisture measurement and control systems, as indicated by their website and general business presence. It is unclear if they shipped a product embodying the claims of RE42534, as specific product details tied to this particular patent are not readily available in public searches. Sensortech Corporation appears to be an operating company and is currently active.

Assignment timeline

There is one recorded assignment for US patent RE42534 on the USPTO Assignment Center.

• 2010-05-20 (executed) / recorded 2010-05-27 — Reel 024450/0148
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST
  • Assignor: CLARK, ANDREW C.; TOPHAM, DAVID W.
  • Assignee: SENSORTECH CORPORATION
  • Correspondent: BALLARD SPAHR LLP 999 PEACHTREE STREET SUITE 1000 ATLANTA, GA 30309
  • Context: Original assignment from the inventors to their employer.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US RE42534
    2010 : Assigned to Sensortech Corp
    2011 : Issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The sole assignment is from the inventors to Sensortech Corporation, an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Sensortech Corporation is not identified as a known asserter by RPX or Unified Patents.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. There is only one recorded assignment in the chain, so no recurrence can be observed.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. There is only one recorded assignment.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. There is no publicly available litigation history for RE42534.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy for Sensortech Corporation.
7. Privateering — not present. No evidence of privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is currently assigned to Sensortech Corporation, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data. There is only one recorded assignment, which is the initial transfer from the inventors to their operating company employer, Sensortech Corporation. There are no further transfers or indications of assertion activity to suggest an NPE pattern. The current owner is the original operating company.

As a technical patent analyst, I need to access the full text of US patent RE42534, including its claims and the list of cited prior art references, to perform the requested analysis. Despite multiple attempts to retrieve this information directly through web searches for "US patent RE42534 claims and specification", "patent RE42534 prior art citations", "Google Patents RE42534", "USPTO Patent RE42534", and "US Patent RE42534 abstract and cited references", I have not been able to directly access the complete patent document or a list of its specific prior art citations within the search results. The results indicate that resources like Google Patents and the USPTO's Patent Public Search tool are the appropriate places to find such information.

Therefore, I cannot provide the full citation, publication/filing date, brief description, and potential anticipation for each prior art reference for US patent RE42534.

Explanation of the Process (if the patent document were accessible):

If I had access to the full text of US patent RE42534, the process to identify the most relevant prior art would involve the following steps:

1. Retrieve Patent RE42534: Obtain the complete patent document for RE42534 from a reliable database (e.g., USPTO Patent Public Search, Google Patents).
2. Identify Claims of RE42534: Extract all claims, paying close attention to the independent claims, as they define the broadest scope of the invention.
3. List Cited Prior Art: Locate the "References Cited" section of RE42534. This section typically lists patents and non-patent literature considered by the examiner or submitted by the applicant during prosecution.
4. Analyze Each Patent Citation: For each patent listed in the "References Cited" section:
   • Full Citation: Record the patent number, inventor(s), and issue date.
   • Publication/Filing Date: Determine the relevant publication or filing date, as this is crucial for § 102 anticipation analysis.
   • Brief Description: Obtain the abstract and a summary of the specification to understand the invention disclosed in the cited patent.
   • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102):
     • Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 means that every element of a claim of RE42534 is disclosed, either explicitly or inherently, in a single prior art reference.
     • For each claim of RE42534, I would compare its limitations element-by-element with the disclosure of each prior art reference.
     • If a prior art reference discloses every element of a specific claim of RE42534, that claim would be considered potentially anticipated by that reference.
     • This analysis would also consider the effective filing date of RE42534 relative to the publication/filing dates of the cited prior art.

Without the direct patent text for RE42534, I am unable to proceed with this detailed analysis.

I am unable to perform a complete obviousness analysis of US patent RE42534 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as requested, for two primary reasons:

1. Missing Claims of RE42534: Although web searches identified the USPTO Patent Public Search tool as the definitive resource for retrieving patent information, I cannot directly access or parse the full text of US patent RE42534, including its claims and specification, within this environment. While I can identify the correct format for searching a reissue patent like RE42534 (e.g., RE042534, padding with leading zeros to make 6 digits), I cannot interact with a live search interface to extract the specific claim language. An obviousness analysis fundamentally requires precise claim language to identify the scope of the claimed invention.
2. Missing Prior Art References: The prompt explicitly states, "Use the results from the Prior Art section of this page." However, no prior art references or a "Prior Art section" were provided in the user's message. Without a specified set of prior art references, it is impossible to identify combinations of such references or explain the motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to combine them.

Explanation of Obviousness Analysis (Conceptual, given missing information):

An obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires several steps as outlined by the Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co.:

1. Determine the scope and content of the prior art: This involves identifying relevant references that existed before the filing date of RE42534. This step cannot be performed without the "Prior Art section" mentioned in the prompt.
2. Ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art: This step requires a detailed comparison of the elements of each claim of RE42534 against the disclosures of individual prior art references and combinations thereof. Without the claims of RE42534 and the actual prior art, this comparison is not possible.
3. Determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art: This establishes the baseline knowledge and abilities of the hypothetical person (PHOSITA) who would be considering the invention and the prior art.
4. Evaluate secondary considerations (indicia of non-obviousness): These include commercial success, long-felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, unexpected results, licensing, and others. These factors would typically be discussed after the initial Graham factors have been considered.

Conclusion:

To perform the requested obviousness analysis for US patent RE42534, I would require:

• The full and exact claim language of US patent RE42534.
• A specific list or "Prior Art section" detailing the references to be considered.

Without these critical pieces of information, I cannot identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious or explain the motivation to combine them.