US 6012811

I'll verify the current litigation/docket status via search, then summarize against the authoritative patent text provided.

US Patent 6,012,811 — Verification Summary

Search note: I searched for the literal identifier 6012811. Searches surfaced Google Patents, Justia, FreePatentsOnline, Sumobrain, and Unified Patents records for US-6012811-A. For the CAFC 2026 docket check, the closest Federal Circuit hit was a July 1, 2026 notice of appeal in Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 3:17-cv-04738, Fed. Cir. appeal of the June 1, 2026 judgment) — that case concerns the '954 patent and a different Contour entity, not US 6,012,811, so I am not attributing it to this patent. I found no 2026 CAFC docket specifically naming 6,012,811. (Also flagging: your prompt states the current date as April 26, 2026 while my system clock reads 2026-09-17; my search results reflect the latter.)

Bibliographic data

⚠️ Discrepancy to note: Unified Patents' portal lists the priority date as 1996-12-12, application date 1997-11-02, grant date 2000-01-10, and expiration 2016-12-12 — one day earlier across the board than the Google Patents front page, Justia, and Sumobrain (which agree on 1996-12-13 / 1997-11-03 / 2000-01-11 / 2016-12-13). The authoritative patent text provided says priority 1996-12-13, filing 1997-11-03, publication 2000-01-11, and I have used those.

Abstract (as issued)

A first frame of an eyeglass device includes a bridge with a magnetic member, and two retaining mechanisms for supporting a pair of lenses. The retaining mechanisms defines a frontal plane. The bridge ties the two retaining mechanism together, with the magnetic member magnetically coupling to another magnetic member at the bridge of a second frame. In one embodiment the coupling occurs at a coupling surface on the second frame that is substantially perpendicular to the frontal plane. The magnetic member at the bridge of the first frame can be a permanent magnet or a magnetizable member. The second frame can be a primary frame, and the first frame can be an auxiliary frame.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has four independent claims (1, 22, 26, 31), each taking a different claim-drafting vantage point on the same core idea, plus 31 dependent claims (35 total).

• Claim 1 — the "first frame" claim. An eyeglass device with a frame having two lens-holding mechanisms that together define a frontal plane, and a bridge tying them together. A magnet (or magnetizable element) sits at the bridge, positioned to magnetically couple to a matching member at the bridge of a second frame. Two functional results are recited: (a) when coupled, the frames hold together and, because of where the magnetic members are placed, one frame cannot slide downward relative to the other (i.e., gravity/friction assists rather than defeats retention), and (b) the two magnetic members couple at a surface that is not parallel to the frontal phase. (The phrase "frontal phase" appears verbatim in the issued claims; context throughout the specification uses "frontal plane," so this reads as a typographical error in the granted text. I am reporting it literally rather than correcting it.)

• Claim 22 — the "bridge" claim. Same substance, but drafted around the bridge as the claimed article: a bridge connecting two lens-retaining mechanisms of a first frame, carrying a magnetic member for coupling to a magnetic member at a second frame's bridge. Recites the frontal plane defined by the retaining mechanisms, downward-motion restriction, and a coupling surface not parallel to the "frontal phase."

• Claim 26 — the two-frame "device" claim. Claims the combination: an auxiliary frame (retaining mechanisms, frontal plane, bridge, magnetic member) plus a primary frame (retaining mechanisms, bridge, magnetic member for coupling to the auxiliary frame's member). When coupled, the auxiliary frame is restricted from moving downward relative to the primary frame, and the magnetic members couple at a surface not parallel to the "frontal phase."

• Claim 31 — the "primary frame" claim. The mirror image of claim 1: claims the primary frame itself (two retaining mechanisms defining a frontal plane, bridge, first magnetic member at the bridge for coupling to a second magnetic member at an auxiliary frame's bridge). When coupled, the auxiliary frame is restricted from moving downward relative to the primary frame, with coupling at a surface not parallel to the "frontal phase."

Representative dependent-claim concepts (all dependent from these four): coupling surface substantially perpendicular to the frontal plane (claims 2, 23, 27, 32); coupling angle of roughly 45°–135° (claim 13; see also claim 21's extension angle of 45°–135°); matching orientation of the two magnetic members (claim 3); slight protrusion of the magnet from its coupling surface (claim 4); slight recession so the magnets couple magnetically but not mechanically (claim 5); bump-free magnetic coupling surfaces (claim 6); chamfered magnet edges (claim 7); magnet ≥2500 gauss with >14 mm² coupling face and >1 mm height (claim 8); permanent-magnet vs. magnetizable-member roles (claims 9, 24, 28, 33); press-fit housing slightly larger/smaller in one lateral dimension (claim 10); a two-part magnetic member straddling the bridge (claims 11, 16, 25, 29, 34); a U-shaped bridge structure sandwiching the other frame's bridge (claim 12); auxiliary/primary frame roles (claim 14); a folding hinge at the bridge (claim 15); and lateral or vertical flanges/extensions (claims 17–21, 30, 35).

Litigation history on the record

Google Patents' Unified Patents data lists district-court and Federal Circuit cases involving this patent family, including N.D. Cal. 2:01-cv-00080 and 8:00-cv-01087, S.D. Fla. 0:00-cv-07070, 1:02-cv-20609, 0:09-cv-60488 and 0:09-cv-61467/61468, N.Y.S.D. 1:01-cv-02507 and 7:02-cv-06195, D. Nev. 2:00-cv-01116, D. Mass. 1:10-cv-12202, and Fed. Cir. 04-1292, 07-1380, 07-1407, 12-1102, 12-1137, 12-1318, plus a Supreme Court filing 12-1120. This patent was also asserted in Aspex Eyewear Inc. v. Altair Eyewear (see the September 9, 2005 Markman document hosted at ipmall.info), where the plaintiff asserted claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12–14, 22–24, 26–28, and 31–33 of the '811 patent.

Confidence / uncertainty

• Bibliographic data, abstract, and claims: high confidence — taken directly from the authoritative full text you supplied (Google Patents, fetched 2026-09-17).
• Litigation list: moderate confidence, derived from a third-party aggregator; I did not independently verify each docket.
• No CAFC 2026 activity tied to 6,012,811 was found. I am explicitly not reporting the 2026 Contour IP Holding v. GoPro appeal as relevant, because that docket concerns a different patent.
• The "frontal phase" wording in claims 1, 22, 26, and 31 is quoted literally; I neither corrected nor relied on a correction of it.

I'll research this systematically, starting with targeted searches on the litigation data for US 6012811.

Let me dig into the specific cases and case numbers.

Litigation Report — U.S. Patent No. 6,012,811

Patent: US 6,012,811 — "Eyeglass Frames with Magnets at Bridges for Attachment"
Inventors: David Chao, Richard Chao | Assignee: Contour Optik, Inc. (Taiwan)
Priority date: 1996-12-13 (per USPTO record; the Google Patents litigation page lists 1996-12-12) | Filed: 1997-11-03 | Issued: 2000-01-11 | Status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2016-12-13)
Family ID: 27505705 (includes US 6,092,896 and US 6,367,926)

Important caveats before the list

1. I interpret all case numbers literally as they appear in the source records. I have not auto-corrected anything.
2. The litigation entries on the Google Patents page for US 6,012,811 are recorded at the patent-family level (family ID 27505705), not per-patent. In practice the plaintiff family (Contour Optik / Aspex Eyewear) almost always asserted a package of three related patents — the '054 patent (US 5,737,054), the '811 patent, and the '896 patent (US 6,092,896) — with the '747 patent (US 6,109,747) appearing in other suits. Not every case below necessarily asserted the '811 patent specifically, and some outcomes turned on the other patents in the package. Where I could confirm the '811 patent was actually asserted, I say so.
3. My research steps were exhausted before I could verify every one of the 18 case links listed for this family. Cases where parties/outcomes are verified are marked ✅; cases where the case number is from the patent record but I could not verify the parties are marked ⚠️.

A. Verified cases

1. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc. v. E'Lite Optik, Inc. ✅

• Plaintiff(s): Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc.
• Defendant(s): E'Lite Optik, Inc. (Texas)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
• Case number: CV-S-00-1116-PMP (Navada docket; Google Patents link: 2:00-cv-01116). A document in the file carries the date stamp 09/15/2000; the case number prefix "00" indicates filing in 2000.
• The '811 patent was expressly asserted: Count I of the complaint is titled "Patent Infringement – The '811 Patent," identifying "United States Patent No. 6,012,811 entitled 'Eyeglass Frames with Magnets at Bridges for Attachment,'" with Contour as record owner and Aspex as exclusive licensee.
• Outcome/status:
  • District court granted summary judgment dismissing Aspex's claims (not Contour's) for lack of standing — the 1998 Chic–Aspex agreement did not convey future-acquired patents, so Aspex was not an exclusive licensee of the '054 and '811 patents. The court also excluded the Ifergan deposition for lack of personal knowledge.
  • Affirmed on appeal: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. E'Lite Optik, Inc., 127 F. App'x 493 (Fed. Cir. 2005) — CAFC No. 04-1292 (the Google Patents family link for 04-1292). The Federal Circuit noted the '811 patent's "retaining mechanism" was construed as a means-plus-function limitation limited to rims, and determined that the '811 claim language "two retaining mechanisms for supporting a pair of lenses, and defining a frontal plane" was a means-plus-function limitation.
  • Google Patents also lists a later S.D. Fla. case, 1:10-cv-12202, and CAFC 12-1137 in this family; the 12-1137 party identity is unverified.

2. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc. ✅ (the central '811 case)

• Plaintiff(s): Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc.
• Defendant(s): Altair Eyewear, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), by stipulation/order in December 2010)
• Case number(s): 7:02-cv-06195 (S.D.N.Y.) → 1:10-cv-12202 (D. Mass.) (also captioned 02 Civ. 6195)
• Filing date: Complaint filed August 2002 (amended complaint later that month; answer September 2002). Originally assigned to Judge Koeltl; reassigned to Judge Robinson (S.D.N.Y.) in September 2003; reassigned July 2010 to a visiting judge; transferred to D. Mass. December 2010.
• The '811 patent was expressly asserted: Plaintiffs asserted claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12–14, 22–24, 26–28, and 31–33 of the '811 patent (along with claim 1 of the '054 patent and claims 13–22 of the '896 patent).
• Key rulings:
  • Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 2d 210 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) — denied Altair's partial summary judgment motion on Aspex's standing and denied Plaintiffs' motion to add VSP as a defendant.
  • Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 526 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (Markman; hearing July 28, 2005) — construed "retaining mechanisms" in the '811/'896 patents as a means-plus-function limitation meaning "a structure that keeps the lenses in place using rims," and "frame" as limited to rimmed eyewear.
  • Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 2d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) — granted Altair's summary judgment of non-infringement of all three patents, including the '811 patent, and denied Aspex's infringement motion. Judgment entered April 13, 2007; amended May 11, 2007.
  • Appeals: CAFC Nos. 07-1380 and 07-1407 (cross-appeal). Decided January 8, 2008; reported at 288 F. App'x 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Held: "retaining mechanism" is a means-plus-function limitation limited to rims; affirmed non-infringement of the '811 and '896 patents; reversed the construction of "frame" in the '054 patent and remanded; affirmed the denial of summary judgment on standing.
  • On remand (D. Mass.): Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 2d 348 (D. Mass. 2011) — construed "secured to" as "embedded within and attached to"; held the '054 claim invalid for obviousness. Affirmed by the Federal Circuit — CAFC No. 12-1102 (also listed in the family as 12-1137).
  • Supreme Court: No. 12-1120, Aspex Eyewear, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., docketed 03/15/2013; lower court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; originating cases 12-1102 and 1:10-cv-12202. I could not verify a merits disposition — certiorari petitions in this period were largely denied, but I am not asserting the disposition as confirmed fact.
• Current status: Concluded; judgment of non-infringement as to the '811 patent became final, and the '054 claim was held invalid.

3. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc. v. Zenni Optical, LLC ✅

• Plaintiff(s): Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc.
• Defendant(s): Zenni Optical, LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
• Case numbers: 0:09-cv-61467 and 0:09-cv-61468 (Case No. 09-61468-CIV-ZLOCH/ROSENBAUM — First Amended Complaint)
• Filing date: 2009 (docket numbering "09-61xxx")
• The '811 patent was expressly asserted: Count II of the First Amended Complaint is "Infringement of the '811 Patent," reciting US 6,012,811 with Contour as record owner and Aspex as exclusive licensee; the prayer sought a permanent injunction against infringement of US 5,737,054, 6,012,811 and 6,092,896.
• Outcome: District court held Aspex collaterally estopped by the Altair litigation (the accused rimless magnetic clip-ons were materially indistinguishable, and every asserted claim contained the same "retaining mechanism" limitation construed to require rims). Affirmed on appeal: CAFC No. 12-1318, Aspex Eyewear, Inc. & Contour Optik, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC (Fed. Cir. 2013; the opinion is widely reported at 713 F.3d 1377, which I state with moderate confidence). The court held that asserting different claims containing an already-construed limitation does not create a new "issue" defeating collateral estoppel.

B. Case numbers listed in the patent record that I could not verify (⚠️ parties/dates unconfirmed)

These appear as litigation links on the Google Patents page for this family. Because I exhausted my research steps, I am flagging them rather than guessing at party names:

Also note: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Designers Eyewear Studio, Inc. (Markman opinion dated 2006-12-22) construed "frame" and "retaining mechanisms" in the '054, '811 and '896 patents; I could not confirm which of the above docket numbers corresponds to it.

C. Bottom line

• Yes, US 6,012,811 has a substantial litigation history. It was a core patent in the Contour Optik/Aspex Eyewear magnetic clip-on eyewear campaign.
• Principal plaintiff: Aspex Eyewear, Inc. (Florida), as exclusive licensee, together with Contour Optik, Inc. (Taiwan), the record owner.
• Principal defendants: E'Lite Optik, Inc.; Altair Eyewear, Inc.; Zenni Optical, LLC; and (per unverified dockets) several others.
• Decisive legal event for the '811 patent: the construction of "retaining mechanisms" as a means-plus-function limitation requiring rims, which produced a Federal Circuit affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement in the Altair case (07-1380/07-1407, 288 F. App'x 697 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). That construction then defeated the Zenni suit via collateral estoppel (12-1318).
• The companion patent in the family, US 6,092,896 (continuation of the '811), shares that history; the '811 patent itself expired in 2016.

Sources: Google Patents US6012811A (litigation links and docket references); Unified Patents litigation portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com) entries for the S.D. Fla., S.D.N.Y., D. Nev., D. Mass., C.D. Cal. and CAFC cases; RPX litigation/Supreme Court records (12-1120); CourtListener and casetext/vLex opinions (Aspex Eyewear v. Altair, 361 F. Supp. 2d 210; 386 F. Supp. 2d 526; 485 F. Supp. 2d 310; 818 F. Supp. 2d 348; Fed. Cir. 07-1380/-1407; 04-1292); Finnegan "Last Month at the Federal Circuit" (May 2013) for the 12-1318 summary; and complaint documents hosted on RPX Insight (CV-S-00-1116; 09-61468).

I'll verify the canonical "no PTAB activity" result against public sources before writing this up.

AIA Trial Proceedings — US 6,012,811 ("Eyeglass frames with magnets at bridges for attachment")

Canonical source for this report: the USPTO Open Data Portal "PTAB proceedings on file" block supplied with this prompt, cross-checked via web search on 2026-09-17. The ODP block is empty. My searches of public PTAB/Unified Patents/CourtListener material surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM bearing this patent number or the Contour Optik / Chao / Aspex family. I am reporting zero proceedings rather than inventing any.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings — no IPR, no PGR, no CBM has ever been filed against US 6,012,811 on any record I can find (0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials), so the defensive posture is "untested at the Board, but heavily tested in district court — and the district court fight already broke the patent's infringement theory for rimless products." The '811 claims are all still presumptively valid (they were never canceled), but a defendant today inherits a thick body of Federal Circuit claim-construction and collateral-estoppel law that is unusually favorable.

No proceedings to list

There is no ### {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} entry to write. To be explicit about what that means and about what I verified:

• The structured ODP block lists only litigation links (district courts, CAFC, one Supreme Court docket), never an AIA trial number. Nothing in it is an IPR/PGR/CBM.
• Searches for "6,012,811 IPR / PGR / reexamination," "Contour Optik IPR," and "Aspex Eyewear IPR 6012811" returned only district-court and CAFC material, plus third-party patents that merely cite the '811 as prior art. No trial number. See Google Patents US6012811, Unified Patents portal — US-6012811-A, Stanford NPE Litigation Database — patent 6012811.
• CBM was never available here in any event: the '811 claims an eyeglass device, not a "financial product or service" (AIA § 18(d)(1)). PGR was never available either — the application was filed 1997-11-03, long before the 2013-03-16 AIA cut-off.
• The patent expired 2016-12-13 (anticipated expiration per Google Patents; Unified Patents shows 2016-12-12 — the two sources disagree by one day, and I have not resolved which is correct). Either way it is expired, which is likely why no IPR was ever filed: post-expiration IPRs offer no amendment and no prospective injunctive relief, so they are rarely worth the spend.

What did happen to this patent (not PTAB — read that label carefully)

This is not an AIA-trial section. It is the substitute record a defendant actually needs, because it is where the '811 was stress-tested.

Sources: CAFC 12-1318 / 713 F.3d 1377; CourtListener — Aspex v. Altair; CAFC 04-1292 opinion PDF; Finnegan — Last Month at the Federal Circuit, May 2013; SGHC 2002/238.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 35 claims of the '811 are UNTESTED and UN-CANCELED. No claim has been canceled, disclaimed in an AIA trial, or narrowed by reissue — nothing is "dead." Claim 1 (and the other independents, claims 22, 26, and 31) is alive on paper. But "alive" is not the same as "enforceable against your product": in the Altair and Zenni litigation the district court and the Federal Circuit construed "retaining mechanisms for supporting a pair of lenses" as a § 112 ¶ 6 means-plus-function limitation whose only disclosed structure is rims, and every accused magnetic clip-on with rimless sunglasses was held non-infringing on that basis. The Finnegan summary of Aspex v. Zenni describes the patents as "directed to clip-on eyewear in which magnets secure the bridge portions of the eyewear" — so the '811's commercial bite is largely confined to rimmed auxiliary frames.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR or PGR was ever filed, no § 315(e)(2) or § 325(e)(2) estoppel has attached to anyone on this patent. Every prior-art ground — § 102 and § 103, pre-AIA — remains fully available to a defendant in district court or the ITC. Practically, the strongest lead is not a PTAB record but the Singapore judgment: the Miki design (Japanese Utility Design Registration 3,031,881, published 1996-12-03) was found to anticipate the bridge-magnet concept, and 1996-12-03 precedes the '811's 1996-12-13 priority date by ten days. That is a plausible § 102(a) reference for the '811's bridge-magnet claims, and because no IPR was filed, it has never been presented to the Board or blessed by it. Treat it as a verified lead to investigate, not a proven ground — the Singapore court applied Singapore novelty law and a differently-worded claim set. The other Singapore-cited art (WO 1990/009611, FR 915,421, FR 1,037,755, the Twincome materials, DE 3,905,041, and the Stemme family) also appears in the '811's own IDS, so a defendant will need to show the examiner never substantively reached it.

Pattern signals. There is no defensive aggregator in the chain — Unified Patents appears only as a data source in the ODP record, not as a petitioner. The same family was asserted against many defendants (Cadore Moda, Northern Eyes, Eyeglass World, Cheuk Ho Optical, E'Lite, Altair, Zenni, and others), but patent owners Aspex/Contour never took the PTAB route; they litigated in district court, went to the Federal Circuit at least six times (04-1292, 07-1380, 07-1407, 12-1102, 12-1137, 12-1318), and lost on the merits repeatedly — including a collateral-estoppel loss that shut down the rimless theory. There is also a U.S. Supreme Court docket in the family (12-1120). So this is a patent family that was fought hard in court and never once tested at the Board.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not build a defense around an IPR that does not exist. There is no FWD to cite and no claim to quote as canceled. Any demand letter asserting claims 1–35 is asserting live claims.
2. If you are accused of infringing with a rimless magnetic clip-on, lead with the construction and estoppel. The dispositive rulings are Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., 288 F. App'x 704 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (affirming SJ of non-infringement of '811/'896; "retaining mechanisms" limited to rims or equivalents) and Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC, 713 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (affirming collateral estoppel). Link: https://www.ptabwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/630/2016/11/case772132236454122261.pdf and https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[8710234](/patent/8710234)/aspex-eyewear-inc-v-altair-eyewear-inc/.
3. Attack standing first if your counterpart is a licensee, not Contour. Aspex v. E'Lite, 127 F. App'x 493 (Fed. Cir. 2005) held the written Chic–Aspex agreement conveyed no rights in the '054 or '811; Zenni also shows the Federal Circuit affirming denial of SJ on standing when the patentee/assignee is joined. Verify who holds record title and whether the current plaintiff is within the parties actually litigated in Altair.
4. Damages are bounded by expiration. The '811 expired 2016-12-13 (verify the exact date against the USPTO fee/expiration record, since Unified Patents shows 2016-12-12). Only pre-expiration sales within the § 286 six-year lookback can be reached, and no prospective relief is available.
5. Do not assume IPR is foreclosed to you. An expired patent can still be the subject of an IPR, though amendment is unavailable. Given the 2025–2026 tightening of discretionary denial, note that a filing is not time-barred under § 315(b) unless you were served more than one year ago, and that no estoppel currently runs against you because there is no prior petition.
6. Verify the "no proceedings" finding yourself before you rely on it in a brief. I searched, but I did not have live queried access to the PTAB Center / E2E docket itself; the ODP block supplied with this prompt is the primary evidence, and it is empty. Confirm directly at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ (USPTO PTAB Center) and via the patent's Unified Patents page. If anything surfaces, it will most likely be an ex parte reexamination rather than an AIA trial, and my searches found no such reexamination for the '811 specifically (the confirmed-claims reexam in this family was the '054).

Disclosure of uncertainty: I found no PTAB proceeding number, judge panel, FWD, or settlement for US 6,012,811, and I have not invented any. The '811-specific asserted-claim list from the Altair/Zenni litigations is not fully reconstructed in the sources I retrieved, so I have deliberately described the rulings by claim limitation rather than guessing which claim numbers were at issue.

I'll research the assignment record and cross-reference the parties before composing the analysis.

Let me dig into the assignment chain specifics, the Chic Optic/Aspex licensing relationship, and any later transfers.

Inventors

Pattern notes (from record, not inference):

• Both inventors are members of the founding Chao family of Contour Optik (founded 1978 by George Chao). This is a classic founder/insider-owned patent, not an inventor-for-hire portfolio: in the Singapore High Court decision Contour Optik Inc and Others v Pearl's Optical Co Pte Ltd (2002 SGHC 238), Richard Chao testified he was a Contour Optik employee when he conceived the bridge-magnet idea, and that he raised the concept with his brother David, who directed product design.
• No "inventor departure" red flag. Rather than the inventors leaving a corporate assignee within 12 months, the inventors are the assignee's principal owners/operators. The only inventor→company assignment on record (1999-07-09, reel/frame below) is a standard confirmatory assignment, not a pre-sale divestiture.
• ⚠️ Note the pre-existing entity relationship: because the inventors were principals of the assignee, the "assignment" is closer to a family/company consolidation than an arm's-length transfer.

Original assignee

Contour Optik, Inc. (Chiayi, Taiwan) — named as original and current assignee on the issued patent; Google Patents lists no subsequent assignee.

• Product embodying the claims: yes. Contour Optik states on its own site that it invented magnetic clip-ons in 1994 and holds "more than 40 USA patents and over 120 international patents" (https://www.contourop.com/about.asp). The '811 patent is one of the core bridge-magnet clip-on patents.
• Primary line of business: design, manufacture and marketing of eyewear — reading glasses, sunglasses, high-end optical frames. Founded 1978 by the Chao family; David Chao is now managing principal. Manufacturing footprint: Taiwan, Dongguan (China), Yingtan/Jiangxi eyewear park (2003+), and a Philippines plant operational since July 2023 (Accessories Council Magazine, Spring 2024 Eyewear Issue, p. 87).
• Current status: operating. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition found. Contour Optik is still an active, family-controlled eyewear manufacturer with 501–1,000 employees and reported turnover of US$10M–$50M (HKTDC Sourcing profile).
• Litigation posture: Contour Optik asserted the '811 patent, jointly with its exclusive licensee Aspex Eyewear, Inc., against eyewear competitors (Altair, E'Lite, Concepts in Optics, Designers Eyewear Studio, Clariti, etc.).

Assignment timeline

⚠️ Verification limitation (stated plainly): I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center / Patent Assignment Search record pages for this patent in this session (the search/tool budget was exhausted before the assignment-record pages returned). I therefore cannot supply reel/frame numbers for this patent. What follows is drawn from the Google Patents legal-events block (USPTO-sourced) and from federal court records. I am not going to invent reel/frame identifiers.

Per the Google Patents legal-events feed (source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6012811](/patent/US6012811)/en), the only recorded reassignment on this patent is:

• Executed: date not stated in the record (pre-issue) / recorded 1999-07-09 — Reel/frame not retrieved in this session
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest (confirmatory inventor→employer assignment)
  • Assignor: CHAO, DAVID; CHAO, RICHARD
  • Assignee: CONTOUR OPTIK, INC.
  • Correspondent: not captured (the Google Patents event block does not reproduce the assignment-cover-sheet correspondent). Unverified — flag for retrieval from Assignment Center.
  • Context: Internal consolidation — founders assigning their own patent rights to their own company; a routine confirmatory filing, not a sale.

No other recorded assignment to any third party was found — no transfer to Chic Optic, Aspex Eyewear, an IP-holding LLC, or a defensive aggregator. This is corroborated by the Federal Circuit in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Miracle Optics, Inc., 434 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), which held the Contour/Chic arrangement was a license, not an assignment: "The '747 patent was never assigned; it was exclusively licensed for only a fixed period of years." The same license-not-assignment analysis governs the related family patents litigated in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. E'Lite Optik, Inc., 127 F. App'x 493 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

Therefore: the ownership chain terminates at Contour Optik, Inc. Chic Optic (exclusive licensee, term through March 16, 2006) and Aspex Eyewear (exclusive sublicensee) held license rights that were never recorded as assignments and never conveyed title. The patent expired 2016-12-13 with Contour Optik still the owner of record.

Related family/applications for cross-reference (from the Google Patents family table, no separate assignee events surfaced): US 5,737,054 (CIP parent), US 6,109,747 (CIP parent), US 5,786,880 (CIP parent), US 6,092,896 (continuation, child), US 6,367,926 (child).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 6012811
    1996 : Priority date 13 Dec
         : Three CIP parent applications filed
    1997 : Application 08 963 299 filed 03 Nov
    1999 : Inventors assign rights to Contour Optik
    2000 : Patent issued to Contour Optik
         : First infringement suits filed
    2002 : Aspex enforces as exclusive licensee
    2006 : Chic license term ends 16 Mar
    2016 : Patent term expires 13 Dec

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at Contour Optik, Inc., a Taiwanese eyewear manufacturer with factories in Taiwan, China, and the Philippines. No "IP / Holdings / Ventures / Licensing" successor appears anywhere in the record. The only recorded assignment (1999-07-09) runs to the operating company, not away from it.

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT. Neither Contour Optik nor Aspex Eyewear appears on the enumerated NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Round Rock, etc.). Both are eyewear businesses that ship product. Caveat for completeness: Aspex Eyewear was a high-frequency plaintiff in the 2000–2010 magnetic-eyewear campaign (see below), which is a litigiousness observation, not an NPE designation.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / NOT DETERMINABLE. With only one recorded assignment and no reel/frame or correspondent captured from the Assignment Center, I cannot assess recurrence. The prosecution-side firm of record is Fliesler, Dubb, Meyer & Lovejoy, LLP (attorney/agent field on the issued patent, via EveryPatent), and examiner was Hung Xuan Dang — but prosecution counsel ≠ assignment-recording correspondent. Do not treat this as a finding. It requires a direct Assignment Center pull.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. One assignment only; no chained LLCs, no <24-month succession, no shared correspondent addresses to compare.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (but timing noted). The single 1999-07-09 recording predates the earliest suits in this family (S.D. Fla. 0:00-cv-07070, N.D. Cal. 8:00-cv-01087, D. Nev. 2:00-cv-01116). However, the conveyance is an inventor→employer confirmatory assignment, not a transfer to an asserting vehicle — it does not fit the "arranged to enable assertion / set venue" fact pattern. Marked not present on that basis.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11, no §363 sale; the assignee is solvent and operating.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT (with a nuance worth stating). Contour Optik kept title and litigated in its own name alongside licensee Aspex; the Federal Circuit's Miracle Optics holding (434 F.3d 1336) that the Contour/Chic agreement was a license, not an assignment confirms title never left the operating company. This is an operating company enforcing through an exclusive licensee, which is ordinary IP licensing — not privateering to a shell asserter.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. Chain does not end at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN.

Additional context on the enforcement campaign (borderline signal, documented): the family was asserted broadly and repeatedly — district-court and appellate matters listed by Unified Patents include S.D.N.Y. 1:01-cv-02507 and 7:02-cv-06195, S.D. Fla. 0:00-cv-07070, 1:02-cv-20609, 0:09-cv-60488 and 0:09-cv-61467/61468, D. Nev. 2:00-cv-01116, N.D. Cal. 2:01-cv-00080 and 8:00-cv-01087, D. Mass. 1:10-cv-12202, and Fed. Cir. 04-1292, 07-1380, 07-1407, 12-1102, 12-1137, 12-1318, plus Supreme Court filing 12-1120. In Aspex v. Altair (S.D.N.Y., Markman 2005-09-09, https://www.ipmall.info/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/Markman/pdfFiles/2005.09.09_ASPEX_EYEWEAR_INC_v._ALTAIR_EYEWEAR.pdf), plaintiffs asserted claims 1–3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12–14, 22–24, 26–28, and 31–33 of the '811 patent — essentially the four independent claims plus their perpendicular-coupling dependents. In a March 10/12, 2003 letter, Aspex identified to Clariti Eyewear that claims 1–4, 7, 9–14, 22–33 of the '811 patent were believed infringed (Fed. Cir. 09-1147). This is volume enforcement by a manufacturer-owner and its exclusive licensee against industry competitors — behavior that is aggressive but not NPE-typical, since every plaintiff in the chain made eyewear.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The ownership chain terminates at Contour Optik, Inc., the Taiwanese eyewear manufacturer that has made magnetic clip-on products since 1994 and that the 1999-07-09 recorded assignment designates as owner; there is no recorded assignment to any licensing-only LLC, shell, or defensive aggregator on this patent. Chic Optic and Aspex Eyewear were exclusive licensees, not assignees — a fact affirmatively confirmed by the Federal Circuit in Aspex Eyewear v. Miracle Optics, 434 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("The '747 patent was never assigned; it was exclusively licensed for only a fixed period"), and consistent with Aspex v. E'Lite Optik, 127 F. App'x 493 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Contour Optik litigated the '811 patent in its own name against competing eyewear makers (Altair, E'Lite, Concepts in Optics, Designers Eyewear Studio, Clariti), which is the operating-company-owner/ship-the-product pattern.

Verification links: USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search publication number 6012811); legacy portal — https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Google Patents legal events — https://patents.google.com/patent/US6012811/en. The reel/frame numbers and the recording correspondent should be pulled directly from Assignment Center; those two fields are the only material gaps in this reconstruction and would fully close signal #3.

I'll verify the prior-art references cited on the face of US 6,012,811 before analyzing them.

Let me verify the key magnetic-attachment references and the German/Japanese family members.

Let me verify two more potentially bridge-relevant references (Stemme's DE3905041 and the early Tesauro/Tokuda magnets).

Scope, method, and verification note

Identifier check (literal): I searched for the string 6012811 and confirmed the hit is US 6,012,811 A — "Eyeglass frames with magnets at bridges for attachment," application 08/963,299, Contour Optik, Inc. I did not import results for look-alike numbers (e.g., the EP search report hit "US 6 271 811 B1 (Shimizu)" that surfaced during searching is a different patent and I have excluded it; likewise US 6,362,800, US 6,362,792 is not this patent).

Sources actually used: Google Patents (US6012811A full text — authoritative, provided) and Sumobrain's reproduction of the front-page reference list. I could not retrieve USPTO PatentCenter's Form PTO-892 (the examiner's list with the "considered / applied" categorizations), so I cannot tell you which of these references the examiner actually applied versus merely listed. Everything below is my own preliminary §102 scoping, not a legal conclusion.

Date conflict flag (carried forward): your prompt says the current date is April 26, 2026; my system/tool clock reads 2026-09-17, and search results reflect the latter. This does not affect the prior-art analysis (all relevant references predate 1996). The bibliographic date discrepancy flagged in the earlier section (Unified Patents vs. Google Patents/Justia) likewise does not change the §102 dates materially.

Legal framework applied: US 6,012,811 has a 1996 priority date, so pre-AIA §102 governs. Critical dates: US filing 1997-11-03; priority/invention date 1996-12-13; the §102(b) one-year bar date is 1996-11-03 (so foreign references published before 1996-11-03 are §102(b) art; those published between 1996-11-03 and 1996-12-13 are only §102(a) art).

The element that does the work. All four independent claims (1, 22, 26, 31) require, in substance: (i) a bridge-mounted magnetic member; (ii) when coupled, one frame restricted from moving downward relative to the other; and (iii) the two magnetic members coupled at a surface that is "not parallel to the frontal phase." Limitation (iii), read with (i), is what separates the '811 claims from the crowded field — nearly every 1980s–90s magnetic-eyewear reference puts its magnets at the temples / on the lens plane, which by definition sits in (parallel to) the frontal plane. A reference that does not disclose a non-frontal coupling surface cannot anticipate the independent claims, no matter how many other magnetic-attachment features it shows.

Tier 1 — The most relevant prior art (bridge-disposed magnets; genuine §102 candidates)

These are the only references on the face of the '811 patent that place the magnets at the bridge, i.e., at the claimed location. They are the heart of the answer.

Bottom line for Tier 1: The Stemme family (DE 39 05 041 / WO 90/09611 / DE 39 20 879 / DE 39 21 987 / DE 39 19 489 / EP 0 458 815) is the most relevant prior art to US 6,012,811. Note that this is not merely my inference: in Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Altair Eyewear, Inc., the court found claim 1 of the related '054 patent obvious over Stemme (two embedded magnets, one in the primary frame's bridge and one in a projection from its bridge), in combination with a Miki patent (CourtListener opinion). The same Stemme disclosure is the natural lead §102/§103 reference against '811's independent claims — with the caveat that the "not parallel to the frontal phase" and downward-restriction limitations must be read onto Stemme's figures element-by-element before an anticipation position is sustainable. I have not read the full Stemme drawings, so I rate that conclusion moderate, not high.

Tier 2 — Magnetic auxiliary-eyewear references (strong on the concept, weak on the bridge/non-parallel coupling limitation)

Tier 3 — Mechanical (non-magnetic) auxiliary-eyewear art

These show the problem (clip-on/slide-on auxiliary fronts) but not the claimed magnetic solution. They are §102 art only for sub-combinations, and otherwise §103/motivation background.

References on the face that are NOT §102 prior art (or are mis-cited)

I am flagging these explicitly rather than silently tabulating them:

Internal inconsistency to flag: The face text lists the non-patent citation *"English language abstract of German Publication No. 391489"* while the patent-citation table lists DE 39 19 489 A1. Read literally, "391489" and "39 19 489" are different identifiers; I am treating the non-patent citation as a truncated form of DE 39 19 489 A1 (Stemme) but noting the discrepancy rather than silently correcting it, per your rule.

Consolidated §102 exposure by claim (preliminary)

What I would do next (and what I could not do here)

1. Obtain the examiner's PTO-892 from USPTO PatentCenter/Global Dossier for 08/963,299 to learn which references were actually applied versus merely listed — that is the single most important missing input.
2. Pull the full text and drawings of DE 39 05 041 A1 and DE 39 20 879 A1 (and the WO 90/09611 counterpart) to determine (a) whether the bridge magnets' contacting faces are non-parallel to the frontal plane, and (b) whether the accessory's retention is gravity-assisted. Those two facts decide whether an anticipation position on claims 1/22/26/31 is viable or whether the reference is only §103 art.
3. Note the "Miki" patent relied on in Aspex v. Altair alongside Stemme — it is not on the '811 face, but it is the reference the court used for the "projection" concept and may be newly material.
4. Treat the "frontal phase" wording in claims 1/22/26/31 (quoted literally, per the earlier section) as it appears; I have not relied on a correction of it.

Confidence: High on the reference list, dates, and claim-level mapping of the four independents; moderate on which Tier 1 references actually anticipate versus merely render obvious, because I have read only abstracts/titles for most non-US references and have not examined the Stemme drawings. I have not verified any of this against a granted invalidity judgment on the '811 patent itself.

I'll verify the disclosures of the key cited references before mapping them to the claims. Let me pull what I can on the most load-bearing references.

Strong findings. Let me verify the remaining bridge-relevant references before writing the analysis.

§ 103 Obviousness Analysis — US 6,012,811

Framing note: This analysis uses the reference list on the patent page (52 patent citations + 35 non-patent citations of foreign-language abstracts) plus verified disclosures for the load-bearing references. US 6,012,811 was filed 1997-11-03 as a CIP of applications filed 1996-12-13, so pre-AIA § 103 governs (Graham v. John Deere; KSR v. Teleflex). I flag where I am relying on titles/abstracts rather than full texts, and where the effective-date question changes a reference's § 102 category. (Consistent with the earlier section, I again note the environment's stated date of April 26, 2026 vs. the 2026-09-17 fetch timestamp; nothing in the § 103 analysis turns on it.)

1. Level of ordinary skill

A PHOSITA here is a mechanical/optical-products designer with 3–5 years' experience in spectacle-frame design and manufacture, familiar with (a) the century-old use of permanent magnets and ferromagnetic inserts to attach auxiliary lenses, shades and accessories to spectacle frames, and (b) conventional frame fabrication (molding, soldering, press-fit insert molding, plating). The field is crowded and mature: the front page alone cites ~50 references spanning 1945–1996, many of which are tagged on the EPO search report for the Sunreeve family (EP 0 743 545) as X-category (most relevant) art.

2. Claim-construction notes that bear on the analysis

• "frontal phase" (claims 1, 22, 26, 31). Quoted literally. The specification, abstract, and every dependent claim use "frontal plane." The inconsistency is a § 112 defect candidate, but for § 103 it does not help the patentee: the negative limitation as literally written — coupling "at a surface that is not parallel to the frontal phase" — is broader than "perpendicular," and broader claims are easier to invalidate.
• Functional language. "Due to the locations of the magnetic members, one of the frames is restricted from moving downwards" is a result that follows geometrically once the coupling surface has any upward-facing component in a worn orientation. Under § 103 you ask whether the structure was suggested; inherency of the result does not save the claim.
• Claims 4, 5 and 10 recite numerical extremes (protrusion, ~10 µm recession, 5–180 µm interference); claim 8 recites ≥2500 gauss, >14 mm-square coupling face, >1 mm height; claim 13 recites 45°–135°. These are result-effective variables (holding force, corrosion avoidance, magnet retention) and are presumptively obvious optimizations under KSR unless Applicant shows criticality.

3. The prior-art landscape (what the cited art actually teaches)

Citation noise to disregard: DE 3 933 331 (Bosch fuel-injection valve), EP 1 061 253 (Siemens poppet valve), JP 5-40493 (reverberation), JP 2-109325 (semiconductor manufacture), JP 61-2621 (carrier control) and JP 57-184910 (perforation inspection) are facially unrelated subject matter; I could not identify any § 103 relevance.

4. Independent claims 1, 22, 26, 31

All four recite the same three-part core: (A) frame(s) with two lens-retaining mechanisms defining a frontal plane and a connecting bridge; (B) a magnetic member at the bridge for coupling to a magnetic member at the other frame's bridge; (C) coupling at a surface not parallel to the frontal plane, with the result that one frame cannot move downward relative to the other.

Combination 1 — DE 3 919 489 (Stemme) as primary reference.
Stemme supplies (A)–(B) expressly: a magnet in the auxiliary bridge piece and a magnet in the main bridge piece, with extra (sunglass) lenses secured in front of the normal lenses. Element (C) is at minimum an obvious arrangement of Stemme's disclosure: a magnet housed in the top face or socket of the primary bridge, with the auxiliary bridge magnet seated on it, necessarily produces a coupling surface that is non-parallel to the frontal plane and uses gravity to assist retention. Nothing in Stemme is limited to a parallel/frontal-plane coupling — the opposite is true, since the bridge-mounted interface is a step or ledge rather than a front-to-front face. To the extent (C) is not literally shown, it is a predictable, two-way-alternative geometry (KSR) with the well-understood consequence that the auxiliary front rests on, rather than hangs from, the primary frame.

Combination 2 — Sadler US 5,416,537 (or Sunreeve EP 0 743 545) in view of Stemme.
Sadler/Sunreeve supply the complete auxiliary-eyewear system (auxiliary lens frame + primary frame + magnet pairs + tinted auxiliary lenses + teach-away-from-clips rationale). Stemme supplies the express teaching to relocate the magnetic connection "in the bridge piece." The motivation is not hindsight: the '811's own background and the cited art recite exactly the problems that bridge placement solves —

1. Alignment. Sunreeve and the '811 background both recognize that the further apart the magnet pairs, the harder it is to match both location and orientation (especially with tiny magnets on artistically curved frames). Moving the pair onto the short bridge makes the pair nearly co-located — a mechanical certainty, not a discovery.
2. Holding power / visibility. Sadler's magnets must live at the temporal portions where the frame silhouette is thinnest; Stemme expressly motivates high-energy rare-earth magnets small enough to be "incorporated in the frame."
3. Gravity. Sadler's rear-facing (in-plane) magnet faces bear the auxiliary lens weight in shear; the art (see § 7) already recognized that a non-parallel, weight-bearing face lets gravity assist. Combining Stemme's bridge location with the known magnetic-attachment system therefore yields the claimed retention as a predictable result.
4. Explicit invitation. Sunreeve's specification states magnets "can be provided on any portion if eyeglasses and sunglasses can be attached or detached stably" — an express teaching not to regard the temple as critical.

Combination 3 — Sunreeve EP 0 743 545 / US 5,642,177 + DE 3 919 489 + Tesauro US 2,770,168. For claim 1's anti-slip aspect, Tesauro '168's socket recess with a profiled bottom ("no endways or sideways movement") supplies the interlock concept and the stated object of preventing displacement — the same object the '811 recites.

Claim 22 (bridge per se) and claims 26/31 (auxiliary-only and primary-only vantage points) rise and fall with the same combinations; each is merely a different statutory "article" framing of the identical structure. Claim 31's "magnetizable member" alternative is squarely met by Sunreeve's express teaching that an entire frame may be made of magnet-attractable material and that magnets may be omitted from one of the two frames.

5. Dependent claims — combinations and motivations

6. Motivation-to-combine synthesis

• Same field, same problem, same solution type. Every combination stays within spectacle-frame design and addresses a single, long-recognized problem: holding an auxiliary lens front on a primary frame without clips.
• Art-recognized failure modes supply the direction. The '811 background, Sadler's own later testimony (US 6,354,703), and the Sunreeve specification all identify the temple-mounted pair as problematic: alignment sensitivity, conspicuousness, limited magnet size, and shear loading. Relocating to the bridge is the natural response — fewer variables because the pair is nearly co-located, and a non-parallel seat so the load is compressive rather than shear.
• Express "any portion" teachings. Sunreeve's statement that magnets may be placed on any portion that yields stable attachment, plus Stemme's bridge-piece embodiment, remove any teaching-away.
• KSR design incentives. Predictable variation of a known structure, use of a known technique (magnetic attachment) improved in the same way, and "obvious to try" with a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (bridge-top, bridge-rear, bridge-socket).
• Reasonable expectation of success. Two decades of proven magnetic spectacle attachments (Tesauro 1956 → Stemme 1990 → Sadler/Sunreeve 1995–96) make success predictable to a PHOSITA.

7. Where the § 103 case is weaker or needs full-text verification

1. Claims 8 and 10 (numerical ranges) are the best non-obviousness candidates. Applicant would argue no reference discloses ≥2500 gauss, the specific face area/height, or the 5–180 µm interference; the counter is that these are result-effective optimizations supported by no criticality data. Expect this to turn on the specification's silence.
2. Claim 12 (U-shaped bridge) — no single cited reference was verified to show a U-shaped bridge capturing the bridge (as opposed to retaining-mechanism) of the other frame. This claim may survive a § 103 challenge mounted solely on the citation list.
3. DE 1 797 366 (Wiedemann) — I could not retrieve its text; its title (permanent-magnetic frame with permanent-magnetic attachment) and its X-citation against Sunreeve suggest it is material, but I will not attribute specific structure to it.
4. § 102(a)/(b) boundary. For references published between 1995-12-13 and 1996-11-03 (e.g., EP 0 743 545, CN 1117593, TW 274588), the category depends on whether the '811's bridge-magnet claims get the parent's 1996-12-13 date or the CIP's 1997-11-03 date. This matters for status but not for § 103 availability.
5. Common-ownership caveat. US 5,568,207 — reissued as RE 37,545 to Contour Optik — describes a primary/auxiliary pair in which one set of magnets has an engaging surface in a horizontal plane with the auxiliary magnets resting on the primary magnets, plus arms that extend over the primary frame and hook downward. That is close to the very heart of claims 1, 2, 12 and 19. It is not on the '811's front-page citation list, so I flag it as outside the prior-art section you directed me to use. If it is § 102(b) art (issued 1996-10-22, more than a year before the 1997-11-03 filing), the pre-AIA § 103(c) common-ownership exception does not remove it. If instead the claims are entitled to 1996-12-13, its availability depends on § 102(e) and § 103(c) applies. Either way, it is the single most damaging reference I found and deserves verification against the full text of US 5,568,207.

8. Secondary considerations and caveats

• No objective evidence is in the record I have. The patent was heavily litigated (many district-court dockets and Federal Circuit appeals listed on the front page, and it was asserted against Altair Eyewear in 2005), and the German opposition involving "Twincome" materials appears in the non-patent citations — but commercial success, long-felt need, and nexus are not established by that alone. Any § 103 defense should press on nexus, since the '811's magnetic-attachment concept was widely adopted industry-wide before 1997.
• Expiry. Anticipated expiration 2016-12-13; the patent is expired, so any present-day challenge is a validity/clearance or historical exercise rather than an IPR target.
• Confidence. High for the content of Sadler US 5,416,537, Sunreeve EP 0 743 545/US 5,642,177, Tesauro '847/'168 and the Stemme abstract/family claims; moderate for Wiedemann DE 1 797 366, Meeker and the Japanese/Chinese/Taiwanese abstracts, whose disclosures I did not open in full. I have not corrected any patent number or identifier, and I have quoted "frontal phase" literally.