Invalidity dossier
US 6042081
Added 9/21/2026, 10:20:18 AM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 6,042,081
Title: Diaphragm operated process flow valve
Assignee: Anderson Controls LC (original and current assignee listed). Inventor: R. David Anderson.
Key dates: Filing/priority date 1998-12-29; granted and published 2000-03-28. Assignment recorded 1999-02-26. Status shown as Expired – Fee Related, with anticipated expiration 2018-12-29. PCT (WO2000039491A1) and AU (AU25955/00A) priority filings dated 1999-12-28.
Purpose. The patent addresses controlling fluid flow through a pipe and, more particularly, controlling valve sensitivity. Prior approaches were either changing the valve plug and/or seat, or adjusting actuator spring tension — the latter done either by a spring adjustor at the bottom of the spring (offering only very small tension changes) or by replacing the spring (cumbersome and time consuming). The stated objects are to control fluid flow, to control valve-plug sensitivity by adjusting spring tension, and to activate and deactivate the coils of the actuator spring.
Plain-language scope. The apparatus is a diaphragm-operated process flow valve with a valve body (valve stem, valve plug, valve seat) and an actuator comprising a diaphragm element operatively associated with the stem. An actuator spring with a plurality of coils, having a terminal coil adjacent the diaphragm, applies pressure against the diaphragm and valve plug. A housing with an internal profile surrounds the spring and locates a keeper element at various positions within the housing, engaging the spring at a chosen position. The keeper's location is selected to adjust spring sensitivity, which in turn adjusts sensitivity of controlling the valve plug against the valve seat. Per the classification data, the disclosure relates to fluid-actuated diaphragm actuators with one side spring-loaded, including means to alter which side the springs are positioned on (F16K31/1262, F16K31/1264).
What the excerpt does not establish. The supplied text gives no claim language, no full description, and no drawing details beyond partial reference to FIGS. 1–3; the description ends mid-sentence. It does not establish claim scope, spring-adjustor details, materials, testing data, or the omitted equations/text.
Generated 10/1/2026, 10:01:47 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6042081. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.