US 5992807

I'll run targeted searches to ground the litigation/docket aspects, then summarize from the authoritative patent text provided.

US Patent 5,992,807 — Analyst Summary

Source note: All bibliographic and claim content below comes from the authoritative full patent text supplied for US5992807A (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-28). My searches of public web sources returned the same patent record and several later patents citing it, but no evidence of any CAFC 2026 docket or district-court case specifically involving US 5,992,807. See "Litigation / Docket Findings" below for the limits of that negative result.

1. Bibliographic Data (literal)

Family (10 jurisdictions): EP0845392B1, JPH1059083A, CN1174464A, RU97111180A, SG60074A1, ATE177379T1, DE69700133T2, ES2131991T3, ITAN960024A1, plus the US case.

2. Abstract (as issued)

A cell phone is removably attached to the dashboard of a vehicle by means of a magnet. The magnet is permanently secured to the dashboard. The cell phone is removably retained by the magnet (due to the attraction between the magnet and the metal parts normally found in the cell phone) and the cell phone may be lifted off manually and manually replaced on the magnet. The magnet has a front face provided with a rubber layer. This rubber layer provides a frictional resistance which is supplementary to the magnet and prevents the cell phone from slipping down.

3. Plain-Language Overview of the Claims

Claim 1 — Independent (combination claim)

This claim is drafted as a combination of three things, not as a stand alone:

1. a cell phone,
2. the interior vertical surface of a vehicle, and
3. a "universal magnetic stand" for removably attaching the phone to that surface.

The stand itself is defined by these limitations:

• a magnet permanently secured to the surface;
• the cell phone is removably retained by the magnet (i.e., the bare magnet holds it with no mechanical jaws, brackets, or tabs);
• the cell phone can be lifted off manually and manually replaced on the magnet; and
• the magnet's front face carries a rubber layer, and that rubber layer supplies frictional resistance supplementary to the magnetic force so the phone does not slide down.

Key point: the inventive contribution recited is the combination of (a) a magnet that doubles as both the mounting and the retention mechanism, and (b) the rubber front-face layer whose friction, in addition to magnetic attraction, resists gravity-induced slippage when the phone is held vertically. The term "universal" in the title reflects the specification's stated advantage that the stand needs no model-specific tabs, but "universal" is not separately recited as a limitation in claim 1.

Claim 2 — Dependent

Adds only that the "interior vertical surface of the vehicle" is a dashboard. So the claim 2 scope is the claim 1 combination specifically mounted to a car dashboard.

Claim-construction observations (from the specification, for context only): the specification states the magnet is preferably a neodymium powder magnet approximately the size of a 500-Italian-Lira coin, that it is attached to the dashboard by a strong biadhesive tape, and that the attraction acts on the ferromagnetic metal casing of the phone's battery pack. These details are specification embodiments; they are not recited in the claims, with the sole exception of the rubber layer (claim 1) and the dashboard (claim 2). The specification also asserts that the magnetic flux terminates in the battery pack metal and is blocked by phone shielding, avoiding circuit interference.

4. Litigation / Docket Findings

• The patent record carries a Google Patents "First worldwide family litigation filed" pointer to the Darts-IP global litigation dataset (family ID 11333991), which indicates the record associates this family with some litigation data. I could not retrieve or verify the substance of that Darts-IP entry, so I cannot confirm any specific case, party, court, or outcome.
• My searches for a CAFC 2026 appeal or docket referencing 5,992,807 / US5992807 returned no matching result. Searches for a 2026 Federal Circuit appeal apparently involving this number surfaced only unrelated 2026 decisions (e.g., Spero v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Nos. 2025-1306 et al., Rule 36 affirmance, May 14, 2026; Innovaport LLC v. Target Corp., 2024-1545, Feb. 6, 2026), none of which concerns this patent.
• Explicit uncertainty: the absence of a CAFC 2026 hit is a negative search result, not affirmative proof that no such docket exists. Free-text docket searching is imperfect, and the patent expired in 2007 (lapsed) with a 2017 anticipated term end, making a 2026 appellate proceeding on this patent very unlikely but not impossible to rule out solely from these searches.

5. Commercial / Legal Significance (brief)

US 5,992,807 is an early, foundational-style reference in the magnetic phone-mount art. It has been cited by a very large body of later patents (the record lists ~150+ citing publications), including Dash-It USA's magnetic coupler (US6,305,656), Richter's holders, Carnevali's magnetic mounting apparatus/platform (US7,371,412; US7,431,251), Scosche Industries' magnetic mount designs, Nite Ize's multi-positional magnetic mounts, National Products' docking sleeves, and Otter Products' magnetic mounting systems. That citation density reflects its status as prior art against the modern magnetic car-mount field, rather than as a commercially enforced patent.

Prepared by: US Patent Analyst · Date: April 26, 2026
Interpretation note: all identifiers (US 5,992,807 / US 08/874,874 / IT96AN000024A, etc.) are reproduced literally as they appear in the provided record; no correction has been applied.

I'll search litigation databases and court records for US patent 5992807.

Let me search litigation-specific databases and court records.

Summary of Findings

I could not identify any specific, verifiable litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 5,992,807. The free litigation databases I searched (Unified Patents litigation portal, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia, Docket Alarm, RPX-style aggregators, and general web searches) returned no case records naming US 5,992,807 as an asserted patent. I found no plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, or outcome to report.

I want to be explicit that this is a negative finding from available free sources, not proof that no litigation exists.

Patent identification (confirmed, for disambiguation)

Foreign family members that could independently be litigated: EP 0845392 B1, JP H1059083 A, CN 1174464 A, RU 97111180 A, SG 60074 A1, DE 69700133 T2, ES 2131991 T3, AT E177379 T1, IT AN960024 A1.

One notable signal in the record (not a case identification)

The Google Patents page for US 5,992,807 displays a "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" banner, hyperlinked to a Darts-ip record for family ID 11333991:

https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=11333991...

Per the banner text: "Global patent litigation dataset" by Darts-ip is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Interpretation / caveat: This banner indicates that Darts-ip's proprietary dataset contains at least one litigation entry associated with this patent family, and Google's boilerplate labels it "first worldwide family litigation filed." However:

• The banner is auto-generated boilerplate, and I could not verify the underlying entry.
• The case-level details (parties, court, docket number, dates, outcome) sit behind the Darts-ip paywall and were not retrievable through the free sources I searched.
• I therefore cannot and do not attribute a specific plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, or case number to this banner. Reporting any such details would be fabrication.

Why a low litigation profile is plausible

1. Expiry. The patent lapsed for non-payment of maintenance fees, with the lapse effective 2007-11-30 and discontinuation recorded 2007-12-31. Damages exposure is capped at roughly the 1999–2007 window, and by 2007 the "magnet-on-dashboard" concept was already widely commercialized (see the extensive "Cited By" list — e.g., US 6,139,608; US 6,149,116; US 6,888,940; US 6,431,513; US 7,431,251).
2. Narrow claim scope. Two claims, both adding a rubber front face to a magnet permanently secured to a vertical vehicle interior surface. This is a small commercial target.
3. Prosecution citation set. The 16 references cited (e.g., US 2,966,992; US 3,195,022; US 4,287,676; GB 2,241,132) are mostly general magnetic-holder art, not phone-stand art, suggesting the field was thinly patented at the time.

Note: the long "Cited By" list on the Google Patents page reflects forward citations by later patents, which is not litigation evidence and should not be read as such.

Recommended next steps to close the gap definitively

1. Darts-ip / Darts-IP family 11333991 — the direct source of the "litigation" flag; requires a subscription. This is the single highest-value check.
2. PACER / CourtListener RECAP full-text search for the exact string "5,992,807" and "5992807" across all district courts (1999–present). My search of these did not surface a case, but a full-text PACER query is more authoritative than web search.
3. Lex Machina / RPX / Unified Patents (logged-in) — search patent number 5992807 as "asserted patent." The Unified Patents caselist is linkable at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist but did not return a match via public search.
4. EPO/Italian court records — given INTEC-S.R.L. is Italian, check whether enforcement occurred in Italy or elsewhere in Europe (EP 0845392 B1 counterpart), which U.S. databases would not capture.
5. CAFC docket search for 5992807 — no appeal surfaced.

Bottom line

• Litigation identified: none that I can verify.
• One unverified signal: Google Patents flags Darts-ip family 11333991 as having litigation; details are paywalled and I could not confirm any parties, court, case number, filing date, or outcome.
• I will not supply case metadata for that flag, because I have no source for it. If you have Darts-ip, Lex Machina, or PACER credentials, the checks in step 1–3 above should resolve the question conclusively.

I'll verify the structured data against public sources before writing up.

Let me run additional targeted checks before concluding.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings are on file for US 5992807. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions against this patent, my independent web checks surface none, and there is therefore no breakdown by status (0 active / 0 invalidated / 0 sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution-denied) — which gives a defendant a very unusual defensive posture: not "the patent has survived IPRs and is hardened," and not "claims 1–5 were canceled," but "the patent has never been tested at the PTAB and, more importantly, it has been dead since 2007-11-30 for failure to pay maintenance fees." Any assertion of this patent today is directed at a lapsed, unenforceable right whose entire two-claim set remains untested at the Board.

No proceedings to itemize

Because the canonical structured list (USPTO ODP) is empty and no proceeding numbers are discoverable, I will not manufacture IPR/PGR/CBM headings. Inventing a proceeding number is exactly the fabrication risk this task flags. Instead, here is what was checked and why the list is empty.

Sources queried (2026-09-28):

• Structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) — no AIA trials.
• Google Patents docket tab for US5992807A — the page (https://patents.google.com/patent/US5992807A/en) lists a litigation indicator but no PTAB proceedings, and shows no "PTAB Trials" section at all. The only litigation flag is a Darts-IP global family link (see caveat below).
• Targeted searches for "US5992807 IPR," "5,992,807 PTAB," Unified Patents activity, and CourtListener/Federal Circuit hits — nothing relevant returned. (One search returned a "maximum steps" tool error; the other queries in that batch returned no PTAB or CAFC material.)

One caveat worth flagging, not reporting as fact. The Google Patents page carries a "Family has litigation / First worldwide family litigation filed" badge pointing to Darts-IP family ID 11333991. That is a global litigation aggregator signal, not evidence of a US IPR or a US district court case, and I could not open or verify the underlying record. Treat it as a lead to chase (likely enforcement of the EP/IT/DE family members in Europe, or a foreign nullity action), not as a finding of US litigation or PTAB activity.

Why the Board has no docket here — the legal-status timeline

From the patent's own legal events and the structured record:

The AIA trial regime began 2012-09-16. By then this patent had already been expired for roughly five years. That timing alone explains the empty docket far better than any "hardened patent" narrative: IPRs are almost never filed against lapsed patents, because there is nothing left to invalidate that isn't already unenforceable, and there is no accused product to defend.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 2 of 2 claims UNTESTED, 0 canceled, 0 sustained. The patent has exactly two claims. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim — a combination claim reciting "In combination with a cell phone and the interior vertical surface of a vehicle, a universal magnetic stand … comprising a magnet permanently secured to the surface … and the magnet having a front face provided with a rubber layer, such that the rubber layer on the front face of the magnet provides a frictional resistance which is supplementary to the magnet and prevents the cell phone from slipping down." Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and merely recites that "the interior vertical surface of the vehicle comprises a dashboard." No claim has been construed by the PTAB, no claim has been invalidated, and no claim has been affirmed as patentable in an AIA trial. Note the § 112 exposure on its face: claim 1 is drafted as a combination claim that arguably requires the cell phone and the vehicle surface as claim elements, and the "frictional resistance which is supplementary to the magnet" language is functional with no disclosed magnitude — a construction fight that has never been had.

Estoppel landscape: there is none, and it is not useful to anyone. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches only to a petitioner that reached a final written decision. With no petitions, no petitioner, and no FWD, there is no estoppel running in either direction — no ground is "used up," and no prior-art ground has been vetted. In principle every printed-publication ground from the patent's very rich prior-art field remains nominally available (§ 102/§ 103 based on, e.g., the references already of record: US 2,966,992; US 3,195,022; US 3,552,705; US 4,287,676; US 4,319,097; US 5,588,055; DE 93 01 423 U1; JP 61-161849; GB 2,241,132 — plus the post-1996 art cited by later workers such as Carnevali's US 7,431,251 and Deppen's US 6,888,940, both of which expressly cite Tarulli). But that is an academic exercise, because the patent lapsed in 2007 and expired at the latest 2017-06-13; a defendant's real defense is the calendar, not the art.

Pattern signals: none — and the negative inference runs the other way. There is no repeat petitioner, no serial petitioner, no Unified Patents or other defensive aggregator in the chain, and no PTAB-to-CAFC appeal history. The patent's prosecution family is broad (EP0845392B1, JP H1059083A, CN1174464A, RU97111180A, SG60074A1, DE69700133T2, ES2131991T3, ATE177379T1), which shows the owner invested in foreign coverage at filing — but the US right was abandoned economically in 2007, which is the opposite of an aggressive assertion posture. A patent that is being asserted in the US today gets IPRed; this one never did.

Bottom line for a defendant. Do not build an IPR strategy. Build a standing/expiry strategy: (1) the patent lapsed 2007-11-30 for nonpayment and cannot be revived (no petition to accept late payment appears in the record; reinstatement under 37 CFR 1.378 requires an unintentional-delay petition and, at this distance, is effectively foreclosed); (2) the statutory term ended 2017-06-13, so there are no acts after that date that can infringe; (3) § 286's six-year damages lookback for acts during the term would have closed on or about 2023-06-13. The claim set has never been tested — so if a demand letter cites claim 1 or claim 2, the correct response is not "claim 1 is dead per IPR2013-xxxxx" (no such decision exists) but "this patent lapsed in 2007 and expired in 2017; identify the allegedly infringing acts and the date, because the recovery window is closed."

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant: do not file an IPR. An IPR against an expired patent is permitted in principle, but here it would be a waste of fees against a right with no damages exposure. Instead (i) demand the plaintiff identify the specific accused acts and their dates; (ii) assert the 2007-11-30 lapse and the 2017-06-13 term expiry; (iii) assert § 286's bar on any pre-2017 conduct more than six years before suit. Quote the record verbatim: "2007-11-30 — Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees" and "PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362."
• Verify the Darts-IP litigation flag. The Google Patents "Family has litigation" badge on family ID 11333991 is the only litigation signal on the face of the record and I could not verify it. Pull the Darts-IP family record (subscription) or check the EP/IT/DE national registers for opposition or nullity actions against EP0845392B1 — that is the most likely source of the flag, given the US right was abandoned in 2007.
• No trial-stage milestones to track. There are no active proceedings, so there is no institution-decision deadline, no oral hearing, and no statutory one-year FWD due date to calendar. If a petition were hypothetically filed and instituted, § 316(a)(11) would set the FWD at one year from institution — but with a lapsed patent and no identified litigation, no petitioner has a reason to file.
• State the absence plainly, as instructed. No PTAB activity exists for US 5992807. Here the absence is not merely the usual signal that a patent is not well-asserted — it is corroborated by an objective legal-status event (maintenance-fee lapse in 2007, five years before the AIA trial regime even existed) that makes PTAB activity essentially impossible to have occurred. If someone hands you a demand letter invoking this patent, the first question is not "what did the PTAB say" but "what year is it, and when did you say the infringement happened?"

Confidence note: I have high confidence in the zero-count finding (the ODP structured block is the canonical source and web checks agree) and in the legal-status dates, which come from the structured record and the patent PDF. I have low confidence about the nature of the Darts-IP litigation flag and am flagging it rather than characterizing it.

I'll research the assignment record for US 5,992,807, starting with USPTO Assignment Search and cross-referencing sources.

Let me query the USPTO assignment records directly and research INTEC-S.R.L.

Let me check the USPTO assignment database API and search for any post-issuance assignments.

I was unable to complete additional Assignment Center queries (search step limit reached), so the following is built on the records already retrieved — chiefly the Google Patents legal-events block for US 5,992,807, the issued patent front page, and Italian business-registry data for the assignee. I flag explicitly below where a datum (notably the correspondent of record) could not be retrieved.

Inventors

Notes / patterns:

• Sole inventor. No co-inventor departures to assess; the "mass departure within 12 months" fire-sale tell is not applicable to a one-inventor, self-assigned application.
• Assignment timing is unremarkable. The Italian priority application (IT AN96A00024) was filed 1996-06-27; the US application was filed 1997-06-13; the inventor→company assignment carries an effective date of 1997-06-05 (recorded 1997-06-13), i.e. the assignment was perfected just ahead of the US filing. This is ordinary inventor-to-employer paperwork, not a distressed transfer.
• The inventor's name recurs in the same Tuscan/Marche locality in a separate sole proprietorship, "Prisma di Tarulli Dario" (Osimo) — consistent with the inventor remaining a local operator rather than exiting the field. (Directory listing; not a chain-of-title document.)

Original assignee

Intec – S.r.l. (rendered "Intec - SRL" on the printed patent [73]; "Intec S.r.l." in the record).

• Entity: Italian società a responsabilità limitata (S.r.l.). Registry data for the Osimo, Ancona (Marche) entity: VAT 01485780421, registered office Via Donato Bramante 11, 60027 Osimo (AN) — the same town as the inventor.
• Line of business: The registry ATECO classification for this Osimo entity is 26.8 — "Fabbricazione di supporti magnetici ed ottici" (manufacture of magnetic and optical media), which is consistent with a maker of small magnetic phone/device accessories. A separate directory lists the same address under "Telecomunicazioni Apparecchi ed Impianti." Caveat — name disambiguation: several unrelated Italian companies trade as "Intec S.r.l." (a Briolf Group composites maker in Calerno; a Turin automotive-accessories distributor; an Intec Firenze). Only the Osimo/Ancona entity matches the inventor's domicile and the magnetic-media classification and should be treated as the relevant assignor.
• Product embodying the claims: The patent specification describes a commercial product (a magnet with double-sided adhesive and a rubber front face). Whether Intec actually shipped this specific "universal magnetic stand" at scale is not documented in the sources I could reach; the registry data indicates a very small operation.
• Current status: Still appears on the Italian register but effectively dormant/micro-scale. Latest filed accounts show revenue of €53,070 (2021), €34,749 (2020), €47,653 (2019), with 0 employees reported. Not evidenced as acquired, dissolved, or in bankruptcy in any source I retrieved.

Assignment timeline

Chronological, from the legal-events record on Google Patents (the same underlying records surfaced by USPTO Assignment Search):

• 1997-06-05 (executed, "Effective date") / recorded 1997-06-13 — Reel 008616/0253

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST")
  • Assignor: Dario Tarulli
  • Assignee: Intec – S.r.l.
  • Correspondent: Not retrievable from the free sources used. Google Patents reproduces the reel/frame and the assignment type but not the correspondent attorney/firm field; that field sits in the Assignment Center image for reel 008616/0253, which I could not open. No correspondent finding is asserted here — I will not name an attorney I did not retrieve.
  • Context: Original inventor-to-employer assignment of the priority invention; not an acquisition, fire-sale, or reorg.

• No further recorded assignments exist for this patent. The complete legal-event history after 1997 consists only of maintenance-fee activity: fee payment 2003-05-28 (year 4); maintenance-fee reminder 2007-06-18; lapse for non-payment 2007-11-30; discontinuation 2007-12-31 ("PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362"); lapse event confirmed 2008-01-22, effective 2007-11-30. Current assignee of record on Google Patents remains INTEC-S RL / Intec – Srl.

This is a single-link chain. There is no post-issuance transfer of any kind — no security agreement, no name change, no merger, no license, no release, no correction, and no assignment to any IP-holding or licensing entity. The patent died in the hands of its original assignee.

(If the Assignment Center image for reel 008616/0253 is pulled, the only additional field it should add is the 1997 correspondent — expect a 1990s-era Italian or US agent; it cannot change the chain topology above.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 5992807
    1996 : Italian priority application filed
    1997 : Tarulli assigns invention to Intec Srl
         : US application filed
    1999 : US 5992807 granted
    2007 : Maintenance fee lapse
         : Patent expires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No transfer to any "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" entity exists; the sole recorded conveyance (reel 008616/0253, 1997) moves the invention from the named inventor to his operating employer, Intec – S.r.l. No LLC of any kind appears in the chain.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither the original assignee (Intec – S.r.l.) nor any current assignee appears on the asserter directories referenced (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, etc.). Note the extensive "Cited By" list is forward patent citation, not assertion, evidence.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear / not assessable. There is only one recorded assignment in the entire chain, and its correspondent field was not retrievable (see timeline). A single 1997 recording cannot establish recurrence, which is the signal.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. No chained LLC-to-LLC transfers at all; the chain has one link and then terminates.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No infringement suit naming US 5,992,807 was identified in the prior litigation pass, so there is no suit for a pre-litigation transfer to precede. The only 1997 assignment predates issuance by two years.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding for Intec – S.r.l. surfaced; the patent lapsed for non-payment of a maintenance fee (2007-11-30), which is an abandonment, not a sale.
7. Privateering — Not present. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer, and no SEC/Patent-Progress/EFF reporting connecting this patent to a privateering campaign.
8. Defensive aggregator — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates by fee lapse at the original assignee.

*(Cross-reference to your own prior finding: the Google Patents page carries a "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" banner pointing to Darts-ip family 11333991. That flag is not corroborated by any recorded assignment activity — there is none after 1997 — and the underlying case detail is paywalled. It is a separate, unverified signal and does not create an assignment-chain finding.)*

Verdict

Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment).

This is the textbook case of the second branch of that category: the chain contains exactly one recorded assignment — inventor Dario Tarulli → Intec – S.r.l., reel 008616/0253, effective 1997-06-05, recorded 1997-06-13 — which is the ordinary original employer assignment. Every subsequent legal event is fee-related, ending in lapse for non-payment effective 2007-11-30 and discontinuation 2007-12-31. With no post-issuance transfer, no shell entity, no known asserter, and no litigation-linked assignment, zero NPE signals are present; the absence of records here means the original assignee simply retained the patent until it expired. (If you want the one open field closed, pull the reel 008616/0253 image at the USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — to capture the 1997 correspondent; it will not alter this verdict.)

I'll run targeted searches to verify the cited references, then build the prior-art analysis.

Let me verify the remaining cited references, including the key Japanese/German and family-cited art.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 5,992,807 (Tarulli / INTEC-S.R.L.)

Scope note. This section builds on the earlier "Patent summary" and "Litigation summary." It does not repeat bibliographic or claim-construction content already given. Where I find a conflict with the earlier sections, I flag it explicitly (see §6).

Method. I worked from the authoritative full text supplied for US5992807A (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-28), which reproduces the front-page citation lists and the "Family Cites Families" list. I then ran targeted searches to verify reference subject matter. Several searches hit a tool step-limit, so for a subset of references only the title, assignee, and dates from the patent record were available, and I say so rather than inventing disclosure content. I searched the patent number literally as 5992807 / US5992807A; no similar-number substitution was made.

Statutory framework. US 08/874,874 was filed 1997-06-13, so pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e) govern. Critical dates: earliest priority 1996-06-27 (IT96AN000024A); US filing 1997-06-13; the one-year § 102(b) line therefore falls at 1996-06-13.

1. The two citation sets on the face of the record

2. The 16 examiner-cited references

3. Reference-by-reference: description and anticipation analysis

For each entry I test the reference against claim 1 element-by-element (magnet permanently secured to a vehicle interior vertical surface; phone removably retained by the magnet alone; lift-off/replace by hand; rubber front-face layer; friction supplementary to magnetism preventing downward slip) and against claim 2 (surface = dashboard).

Tier A — Most relevant

1. US 5,588,055 A — Williamson, Telephone holder with mounting assembly (filed 1995-01-27; granted 1996-12-24). (Verified via full text.)
Mechanical box-style holder with a spring-biased lateral member that "enables the holder to accept a wide variety of different portable telephone models," plus a hook bracket (40) and spring-biased buttress (42) that temporarily mount the holder over the top edge of a "generally vertical surface" (50/52) — expressly including a glove box, dashboard, door, or arm-rest — "without damaging or marring the surface." Its stated objects include a holder "universal for nearly all portable telephones."
Anticipation: None. It discloses the claim-1 preamble environment (a portable telephone, a generally vertical interior vehicle surface including the dashboard) and the "universal / no dashboard holes / no adhesive" motivation — but it has no magnet and no rubber front-face layer. It cannot anticipate claim 1 or claim 2. It is, however, the strongest § 103 reference for the claim-1 preamble and for the "universal" characterization.
Note: because its US filing (1995-01-27) predates the 1996-06-27 priority date, it is available as § 102(e) art even though its grant date post-dates priority.

2. US 2,966,992 A — American Display Company, Magnetic holder (filed 1957-12-23; granted 1961-01-03). (Partially verified via search.)
A multi-block magnetic holder (barium-ferrite-type ceramic blocks magnetized in four sections), each with magnetizable pole-piece bars (14, 16) at the front surface. The verified specification states objects of providing a holder that "will not easily slip or slide upon the surface to which it is magnetically attached" and from which "articles will not readily slip or slide," and discloses a non-magnetic spacer (20) disposed at the front surface of the blocks.
Anticipation: None as to claim 1. It does not disclose a cell phone, a vehicle interior vertical surface, or (on the available text) a rubber layer whose friction is supplementary to the magnet to stop vertical slippage. It is, however, the closest cited art to the "magnet plus non-slip front face" concept, and the "will not slip or slide" objectives map onto the claim-1 functional language. If the front-face spacer were shown to be an elastomer, this becomes a serious § 102 candidate for the front-face element. I could not verify the spacer material, so I do not assert anticipation.

3. GB 2 241 132 A — Technophone Ltd., Telephone handset cradle (filed 1990-02-20; published 1991-08-21). (Verified as to citation; disclosure not retrieved.)
Telephone-handset cradle art — the telephone-holder field generally.
Anticipation: None. A mechanical cradle for a handset, with no magnet and no rubber friction layer; on the record before me it discloses at most the general "holder for a telephone in a vehicle" context. It is relevant to the claim-1 preamble only.

4. JP H07-288570 A — Oki Electric Ind. Co. Ltd., Cellular telephone set (filed 1994-04-15; published 1995-10-31). (Disclosure not retrieved.)
Cellular telephone set. Title indicates a telephone (handset/phone), not a mount.
Anticipation: None. Disclosure of a "cellular telephone set" alone does not meet the "magnet permanently secured to the interior vertical surface of a vehicle" or the rubber-layer limitations. Relevant only to the "cell phone" element of the claim-1 combination.

Tier B — Magnet/adhesive attachment to a surface (non-telephone)

5. US 4,605,292 A — Bright of America, Mirror with adhesive/magnetic mirror supporting strips (1985-06-28 / 1986-08-12). Discloses adhesive and magnetic strips for securing an article to a surface.
Anticipation: None. It supports the general notion of an adhesive-and/or-magnet attachment to a surface, but no cell phone, no vehicle, and no rubber friction layer.

6. US 5,031,874 A — Shannon, Stick-on, protective magnet (1989-11-30 / 1991-07-16). (Disclosure not retrieved.)
Title indicates a magnet carrying a stick-on (adhesive) backing with a protective covering. This is the cited reference whose architecture most resembles the claimed construction — magnet + adhesive on one side + a covering layer on the other.
Anticipation: None as to claim 1. Even if it discloses an adhesive-backed magnet with a protective covering, it does not disclose a cell phone, a vehicle interior vertical surface, or that the covering is rubber rendering frictional resistance supplementary to the magnet against vertical slippage. Strong § 103 material for the two-sided magnet construction only.

7. US 3,552,705 A — Caster, Magnetic means for holding a bar of soap and attaching the soapholder to a wall (1969-01-31 / 1971-01-05). Magnet used both to attach a holder to a wall and to retain an article.
Anticipation: None. Structurally it teaches magnet-based retention of a light object against a vertical surface — relevant background for the "vertical surface" element (claim 1; not a vehicle dashboard under claim 2) — but nothing about cell phones or rubber friction layers.

8. US 3,195,022 A — Staver Westport Inc., Magnetic sheet holder (1964-01-02 / 1965-07-13); and US 4,287,676 A — Weinhaus, Magnetically secured display apparatus (1978-05-22 / 1981-09-08). Both use magnetism to hold flat articles/display matter to a surface.
Anticipation: None. Generic magnetic-holding art; no phone, no vehicle surface, no rubber layer.

9. US 4,957,266 A and US 5,096,154 A — Ellis, Magnetized gas cap (both filed 1989-09-05; published 1990-09-18 and 1992-03-17). (Related same-inventor pair.) A magnet used to retain a removable cap against a body/panel.
Anticipation: None. Teaches only magnet-to-surface retention of a removable article.

10. US 4,100,684 A — Berger, Holder device for paper articles and writing instruments (1976-06-21 / 1978-07-18); and US 3,642,122 A — Henderson, Receptacle and retainer means (1969-10-13 / 1972-02-15). (Disclosures not retrieved.)
Desk/utility holders.
Anticipation: None. General holder art; neither is verified as disclosing a magnet, a vehicle surface, or a rubber friction face.

Tier C — Vehicle-interior mounting, telephone/radio apparatus, or laminate/bonding background

11. US 4,319,097 A — Liautaud, Mounting system for a mobile microphone (1980-05-05 / 1982-03-09). (Disclosure not retrieved.) Mounting a mobile-microphone unit in a vehicle interior — a comparable-weight removable device mounted to a vehicle surface.
Anticipation: None as to claim 1 on the available information (no magnet/rubber layer verified). Most relevant as § 103 art for the "interior vertical surface of a vehicle" element.

12. DE 93 01 423 U1 — Plaas-Link, Device for attaching handheld radio telephones (1993-01-26 / 1993-05-27). (Disclosure not retrieved.) German utility model for attaching handheld radio telephones — the closest title-level match to "removably attaching a handheld telephone in a vehicle."
Anticipation: None as to claim 1 on the available information. Worth a full-text pull (see §5) because if it discloses magnetic retention it becomes materially more relevant.

13. JP S61-161849 A — NEC Corp., Key telephone set with built-in electromagnet (1985-01-11 / 1986-07-22); and JP H07-148884 A — Tokai Chem Kk, Composite plate; bonding melamine resin-impregnated sheet to metallic sheet (1992-06-26 / 1995-06-13; family-cited).
A telephone set incorporating an electromagnet; and a composite-plate/laminate bonding technique.
Anticipation: None. NEC is background as to magnets in telephone equipment (and is an electromagnet in a desk-type key set, not a permanent-magnet phone mount). Tokai Chem is background on bonding metal/resin layers, potentially relevant to the specification's biadhesive-tape disclosure, which is not a claim limitation.

4. The 7 family-cited references

These appear under "Family Cites Families" (i.e., they were cited in the prosecution/search of family members such as EP0845392B1), not in the US citation list.

JP H08-288989 A (Kato Works) — important date point. I verified this reference appears in the EP0845392B1 search report as: "PATENT ABSTRACTS OF JAPAN vol. 097, no. 003, 31 March 1997 & JP 08 288989 A (KATO WORKS CO LTD), 1 November 1996." Its publication date (1996-11-01) falls after the 1996-06-27 priority date but before the 1997-06-13 US filing date. Consequences:

• It is not § 102(a) art if the IT96AN000024A priority is perfected (its publication post-dates the priority date);
• it is not § 102(b) art (published less than one year before the US filing); and
• it is not § 102(e) art, because pre-AIA § 102(e) reaches only applications filed in the United States.
  So it is date-sensitive art that turns on the priority question. Its 1995-04-14 Japanese filing predates the priority date, but that filing date does not create a US § 102(e) date. Its disclosure is not known to me, so I do not speculate as to whether it discloses magnetic retention.

5. Bottom line on anticipation

• No reference cited against US 5,992,807 anticipates claim 1, and none anticipates claim 2. No cited reference discloses the full claim-1 combination, and — critically — none of them discloses a magnet whose front face carries a rubber layer providing frictional resistance supplementary to the magnet to prevent downward slippage. That layer-plus-magnet cooperation is the point at which all 16 US citations fail, which is consistent with the earlier summary's identification of the rubber layer as the likely inventive contribution. No contradiction with the earlier sections on this point.
• Best § 102 candidate, if further evidence exists: US 2,966,992 (American Display) — the only cited reference whose verified disclosure expressly addresses non-slippage of both the holder and the retained articles and discloses a material layer at the magnet's front face. Its spacer must be shown to be an elastomer/rubber before anticipation could be argued.
• Best § 102(e) candidate: US 5,588,055 (Williamson), available as of 1995-01-27 — but it is purely mechanical (spring + hook bracket), so it fails the magnet limitation outright.
• Best § 103 combination: US 5,588,055 (universal phone holder on a vehicle interior vertical surface, incl. dashboard, no marring) + US 2,966,992 (magnetic holder resisting slip, with a front-face layer) + US 5,031,874 (adhesive-backed magnet with a covering layer). This is the combination an examiner or challenger would most plausibly run, with the rubber/friction element supplied by US 2,966,992 or by ordinary skill.
• Highest-value unretrieved disclosures to pull in full text (all blocked by a tool step-limit in this session): US 3,642,122; US 4,100,684; US 4,319,097; US 4,957,266 / US 5,096,154; US 5,031,874; US 5,588,055 (retrieved in part); GB 2 241 132 A; DE 93 01 423 U1; JP H07-288570 A; JP H08-288989 A.

6. Discrepancy flags (per instruction)

1. "500 Lira" vs. the literal text. The earlier summary glossed the magnet size as "approximately the size of a 500-Italian-Lira coin." The authoritative US text literally reads "an item of very compact dimensions corresponding to a 500.English Pound. coin" — a merged/garbled formulation — and the EP0845392B1 counterpart renders it as a "500 £ coin." Per the operating rules I do not auto-correct this, and I note that "Italian Lira" is an inference not supported by the literal US text.
2. Priority-table quirk in the record. The record lists IT96AN000024A with priority 1996-06-27, while a separate "Applications Claiming Priority" row shows "ITAN96A0024 — 1997-06-13." I reproduce both literally and do not reconcile them.
3. Citation counts. The record presents the same forward-citation set twice with different totals ("Cited By (151)" and "Cited By (215)"). Neither is prior art against US5992807; no analysis is drawn from either.

Uncertainty statement: For the references marked "disclosure not retrieved," the descriptions above are title-, assignee-, and date-based from the patent record only. Any anticipation conclusion for those references remains conditional until their full texts are examined.

I'll research the specific prior-art references in the record to ground the obviousness analysis.

Weinhaus (US4287676) is highly relevant. Let me pull the phone-specific references.

Let me examine the phone/microphone-specific references most likely to matter for motivation to combine.

Obviousness Analysis — US 5,992,807 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note. The patent has a US filing date of 1997‑06‑13 and an Italian priority date of 1996‑06‑27 (IT96AN000024A), so pre‑AIA § 103(a) governs. This analysis builds on the claim/prior‑art groundwork already laid in the summary and litigation sections and does not repeat it. The record supplied does not include the prosecution history (Office Actions / applicant remarks), so I cannot say what the examiner actually argued — I flag that as a material gap below.

1. What has to be taught (element decomposition of claim 1)

Limitations C, D and F are result‑of‑structure recitations. Under In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1997), reciting the function or intended use of a structure does not distinguish it from a prior‑art structure that inherently performs that function. So the only structural novelty in claim 1 over the cited art is (E): an elastomeric layer on the article‑facing face of the magnet. Everything else — magnet, permanent adhesive attachment to a vertical vehicle surface, cell phone as the carried article, removable retention — is individually old.

2. The prior‑art record actually on this page (all examiner‑cited, asterisked)

Verified in detail (full text retrieved):

Verified only at the bibliographic/abstract level (not full text) — treat as prima facie but needing the full document pulled: US 3,195,022 (Staver Westport, magnetic sheet holder); US 3,552,705 (Caster, magnetically wall‑mounted soap holder holding an article vertically); US 3,642,122 (Henderson, receptacle and retainer); US 4,100,684 (Berger, holder for paper articles and writing instruments); JPS 61‑161849 (NEC, key telephone with built‑in electromagnet); US 4,605,292 (Bright of America, mirror with adhesive/magnetic supporting strips); US 4,957,266 & US 5,096,154 (Ellis, magnetized gas cap); US 5,031,874 (Shannon, stick‑on protective magnet); GB 2,241,132 (Technophone, telephone handset cradle); DE 9301423 U1 (Plaas‑Link, "Vorrichtung zur Befestigung von Handfunktelefonen" — device for attaching handheld radio telephones); JP H07‑288570 (Oki Electric, "Cellular telephone set" / 自動車電話機, priority 1994‑04‑15); US 5,588,055 (Williamson, telephone holder with mounting assembly, filed 1995‑01‑27).

Family‑level citations (the seven "Family Cites Families" items, unasterisked — likely cited in the EP/JP prosecution of EP 0 845 392): DE 3,445,832 A1 (Adam Opel, "device for attaching components to vehicles, especially inside rear‑view mirrors to motor vehicle windscreens" — i.e., adhesive mounting of an accessory to a vertical vehicle interior surface); DE 3,913,273 A1 (Bosch, portable radio telephone handset carrier); DE 9,100,527 U1 (Siemens, radiotelephone); JPS 62‑1350 (Matsushita, telephone); JP H08‑288989 (Kato Works, "Holder for mobile phone," published 1996‑11‑01); JPS 58‑65778 (Mitsubishi Heavy, bonding technique); JP H07‑148884 (Tokai Chem).

Date caveat on JP H08‑288989: published 1996‑11‑01, after the 1996‑06‑27 Italian priority date. It is therefore not safely available as § 102(a) art if the Italian priority is perfected, and it is a Japanese application, so § 102(e) is unavailable. Do not build a rejection on it without resolving priority.

3. Combinations that would render claim 1 obvious

Combination A — Weinhaus US 4,287,676 + Liautaud US 4,319,097 (strongest)

Mapping:

• B ← Liautaud: magnet attached to structure that stays fixed in a vehicle; the operative mounting is a magnet, and permanent affixation of a magnet to a vehicle surface by adhesive is separately taught by US 4,605,292 ("adhesive … supporting strips") and by Opel DE 3,445,832 A1 (adhesive attachment of an accessory to a vertical windscreen/dash surface).
• C, D ← Liautaud: device magnetically retained and manually lifted off.
• E, F ← Weinhaus: the elastomeric (rubber) layer magnetically held in contact, supplying "high intrinsic lateral adherence" in addition to magnetic pull, to stop gravity‑driven lateral (downward) displacement on a vertical surface. This is a literal description of claim‑language F.
• A, G ← Liautaud (vehicle interior) / Technophone GB 2,241,132 and Oki JP H07‑288570 (telephone in a vehicle).
• Substitution of a cell phone for Liautaud's microphone or an equivalent carried article is a substitution of one known article for another, using the article for its known function; the specification itself (not the claim) concedes the magnetic mass is simply the ordinary ferrous battery casing already present in every phone — i.e., the substitution requires no new structure.

Motivation. Weinhaus is not merely analogous art — it addresses the identical problem recited in limitation F and states the identical mechanism (friction supplementing magnetic pull). Where the prior art "discloses the claimed invention's mechanism to solve the same problem," the motivation is intrinsic to the reference. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007), "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." Nothing in the claim is beyond that skill: the only adjustment is placing the friction layer on one face of the magnet rather than the other.

The one real gap, and why it is bridgeable. Weinhaus's elastomer sits between the magnet and the fixed surface; claim 1 requires the rubber on the magnet's article‑facing face. A challenger must show that relocating the pad is a design choice among two alternatives on a two‑faced part. Support: (i) a magnet has only two major faces, so placing a friction pad at the interface where slip occurs is the definition of ordinary mechanical expediency; (ii) US 2,966,992 expressly addresses both slip interfaces, including the article‑retaining interface, and shows a non‑magnetic layer on the front face of the magnet blocks; (iii) claim 1's own result‑of‑structure framing (F) is met by any layer that inherently prevents slippage, so the exact face is arguably not even a structural limitation on a correct claim construction.

Combination B — US 2,966,992 + Weinhaus US 4,287,676 + a vehicle telephone holder (GB 2,241,132 / US 5,588,055 / JP H07‑288570)

US 2,966,992 supplies the dual‑function magnetic holder (held to the wall, holds the article) with anti‑slip objectives at both interfaces; Weinhaus supplies the rubber friction layer and its synergy with magnetic force; the telephone‑holder references supply the telephone‑in‑vehicle environment (and US 5,588,055 supplies the mounting assembly). Motivation: the references are all in the same field of endeavor — magnetic and mechanical holders for portable articles — and US 2,966,992's stated objects are the very problems claim 1 solves.

Combination C — US 4,319,097 + US 4,605,292 + Weinhaus

Liautaud even teaches the thin‑plastic‑wall attraction‑through‑casing geometry (limitation C as applied to a cased electronic device), and Bright of America supplies adhesive‑backed magnet mounting. Add Weinhaus for the rubber layer. This combination most closely tracks the commercial device described in the specification (magnet + biadhesive tape + rubber pad).

Combination D (anticipation‑adjacent) — US 2,966,992 alone

If, on full text review, US 2,966,992's "non‑magnetic spacer … in engagement with the front surface of each of the blocks" turns out to be a friction element (felt, rubber, or like) at the article interface, this reference alone may come close to § 102 anticipation of limitations B–F. I could not verify the spacer's material from the OCR excerpt retrieved; the full document must be pulled before this is asserted. (Note the "thin felt pads" language I encountered belongs to a different document, US 2,557,399, and must not be attributed to US 2,966,992.)

4. Why the obviousness case is nevertheless contestable — points to raise in rebuttal

1. The examiner had the art. Every one of the 16 US/foreign "Patent Citations" on this page carries the Google Patents "cited by examiner" asterisk, and Weinhaus (US 4,287,676) is among them. The examiner therefore considered the closest friction‑layer teaching and still allowed the claim. That does not immunise the patent — examiner error is a recognised ground in § 103 challenges and IPRs — but it means a challenger must articulate why the allowance was wrong, most plausibly by pressing the In re Schreiber point (that F is a result, not a structure) rather than by treating Weinhaus as new art.
2. Face location. Weinhaus's elastomer is against the fixed surface, not the carried article. That is a genuine structural difference and the most defensible nonobviousness argument available.
3. Prosecution‑history blind spot. The record here contains no Office Action or reasons for allowance. Any § 103 opinion is provisional until that history is retrieved (USPTO PatentCenter / Global Dossier for US 08/874,874 and EP 97 830 292).
4. Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4). The obvious candidates cut weakly:

• Long‑felt need — the specification recites genuine, specific problems with tab‑type plastic cradles (dashboard holes, scratching, model‑specificity, fiddly insertion). But the need was solved elsewhere in the art by the same means (Weinhaus), which defeats the "failure of others" variant.
• Commercial success — the modern magnetic car‑mount market (Scosche, Nite Ize, Otter Products, National Products; see the ~215 forward citations on this record) is large, but nexus is the problem: that success is driven by later developments (MagSafe‑era magnetic interfaces, wireless charging, vent/ball‑joint hardware), not by the 1996 rubber‑pad feature. There is also no evidence the patentee ever commercialised the patented combination or enforced it — it lapsed for non‑payment of maintenance fees effective 2007‑11‑30, which is difficult to square with a commercial‑success narrative.
• Unexpected results — the specification's assertion that magnetic flux terminates in the battery‑pack casing and is blocked by phone shielding (no circuit interference) is arguably a technical surprise, but it is not recited in any claim, so it cannot support patentability of the claims as written.

1. Practical reality. The patent expired in 2007 (anticipated term end 2017‑06‑13) and is unenforceable; an obviousness attack today has value only defensively — e.g., attempting to neutralise US 5,992,807 as § 102/§ 103 prior art against a later patent, or in a reexamination/citation context. The record shows no verified litigation (see the litigation section) beyond the unverifiable Darts‑ip family flag.

5. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is, on this record, vulnerable to § 103 over Weinhaus US 4,287,676 in view of Liautaud US 4,319,097 (plus a vehicle telephone holder such as GB 2,241,132 or JP H07‑288570, and US 4,605,292 or DE 3,445,832 A1 for adhesive attachment), and alternatively over US 2,966,992 + Weinhaus + a telephone holder. The stated motivation is strong because Weinhaus solves the same problem with the same mechanism (elastomeric friction layer supplementing magnetic pull on a vertical surface) that claim 1's limitation F recites.
• Claim 2 is obvious for the same reasons once the vehicle interior surface is a dashboard; the dependent claim adds nothing beyond the environment already disclosed in the vehicle‑mount references (Liautaud, Plaas‑Link DE 9301423 U1, Oki JP H07‑288570).
• The weakest link in any such rejection is the relocation of the elastomeric layer from the magnet/mounting‑surface interface (Weinhaus) to the magnet/article interface (claim 1). That must be met with the two‑faces design‑choice argument plus US 2,966,992's front‑face spacer, and by pressing that F is a result‑of‑structure recitation under In re Schreiber.
• Caveats I will not paper over: (i) no Office Action history was supplied, so I cannot state the examiner's stated reasons for allowance; (ii) I verified full text for only US 2,966,992, US 4,287,676 and US 4,319,097 — the other references are characterised from bibliographic data and abstracts only and must be pulled in full (with certified translations for the JP/DE references) before any rejection is finalised; (iii) JP H08‑288989's post‑priority publication date makes it unreliable as prior art.

Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5992807/en ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US2966992 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US4287676 ; https://patents.google.com/patent/US4319097 (claim and abstract text via https://insight.rpxcorp.com/patent/[US4319097A](/patent/US4319097A)).