Invalidity dossier
US 5900982
High efficiency light valve projection system
Current assignee: Projectavision Inc
Added 9/23/2026, 7:32:32 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 5,900,982 A
Title: High efficiency light valve projection system
Patent number: US5900982A
Application number: US08/963,016
Inventors: Eugene Dolgoff, Malcolm MacFarlane, Paul B. Christie
Original/Current Assignee: Projectavision Inc
Priority date: 1987-12-31
Filing date: 1997-11-03
Publication date: 1999-05-04
Legal status: Expired – Fee Related
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5900982/en
Purpose and plain-language scope. According to the supplied text, the patent concerns a projection system in which light passes through or is otherwise modulated by a "light valve" to form a projected image. The recurring prior-art keywords — light, image, forming element, pixel, lens — indicate the disclosure addresses how image-forming elements and pixel structures are illuminated and imaged through lenses with the aim of improving light efficiency.
The classification entries frame the subject matter as colour picture projection using electronic spatial light modulators (H04N9/31 and subclasses), including two-dimensional spatial light modulators displaying all colours simultaneously (H04N9/3105), modulator illumination systems and polarizing of the light beam (H04N9/315, H04N9/3167), and convergence or focusing systems (H04N9/317). Entries for autostereoscopic and stereoscopic displays, lenticular lenses, polarization multiplexing and projection screens (H04N13/305, H04N13/337, H04N13/363) also appear.
Priority chain shown. The text links the case to US07/290,040 (filed 1988-12-23, published as US5012274A) and US07/659,596 (filed 1991-02-21, published as US5300942A), and lists later filings claiming priority from it.
What the excerpt does not establish. The supplied text contains no claims, no abstract, no written description, no drawings detail, and no named prior-art references. It therefore does not establish the actual claimed scope, the specific components or optical arrangements, the measure of "high efficiency," or the technical problem solved. It also does not establish inventorship correctness, ownership history, validity, enforceability, or the content of the priority applications.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:41:57 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5900982. 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.