Invalidity dossier
US 5848399
Computer system for allowing a consumer to purchase packaged goods at home
Current assignee: Dassault Systemes SE
Added 9/24/2026, 1:10:43 AM
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 5,848,399
Title: Computer system for allowing a consumer to purchase packaged goods at home
Patent number: US5848399A | Application: US08/686,755 | Inventor: Raymond R. Burke
Dates (as listed): Priority 1993-11-30; filed 1996-07-25; granted/published 1998-12-08; anticipated expiration 2013-11-30. Status: Expired – Lifetime.
Assignee: Original assignee listed as "Individual"; a 2011-08-10 reassignment to DASSAULT SYSTEMES, S.A. lists Raymond Robert Burke as assignor. Google notes its assignee list may be inaccurate and that it performs no legal analysis.
Purpose and scope (from the supplied text): The invention is a "system and method which allows a consumer to purchase products, typically packaged commodity goods, from home." It generates a display image representing a store shelf, shown for example on the consumer's television, including images of multiple product packages. The consumer can "zoom in or out, or pan left or right," and select a product to view packaging in more detail, rotate the package, view ingredients, or purchase it—using an input device such as a remote control.
Three components are described: (1) a retail space management system generating product/shelf size and location information in three dimensions, including a unique product code; (2) a product database storing images, prices and other information accessible by those codes; and (3) a three-dimensional modeling and display system that builds 3D models of shelves and products from the size/location data, retrieves product images by code, and combines them into the shelf image. Consumer actions are "preferably recorded for subsequent analysis for market research." The text limits the intended goods to packaged/commodity items a consumer "does not need to inspect before purchasing."
Not established by this excerpt: The full claims, specification, and drawings (FIGS. 1–18 are listed but not reproduced); whether the 2011 reassignment is current or complete; the accuracy of priority/grant/expiration dates; and any litigation, validity, or prior-art conclusions.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:31:33 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5848399. 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.