Invalidity dossier
US 6380854
Remote alarm tester
Current assignee: Individual
Added 9/23/2026, 10:39:10 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 6380854 B1
Title: Remote Alarm Tester
Inventors: Eric Hagerman; Steve Carrick
Original/Current Assignee: Individual
Application No.: US09/584,681
Priority/Filing Date: 2000-05-31
Publication (Grant) Date: 2002-04-30
Legal Status: Expired – Fee Related; anticipated expiration 2020-05-31
Classifications: G08B7/06; G08B29/12; G08B29/14; G08B29/145; G08B5/22; G08B5/36; G08B5/38
Purpose: The patent addresses the time-consuming conventional method of alarm testing, in which an inspector activates alarms at a central console, travels to each alarm to verify it, then returns to turn it off—causing building-resident disturbance or requiring a second person with handheld radios. The stated object is to let a maintenance person or Fire Alarm Inspector check a plurality of emergency alarms in a timely, reliable fashion with one person.
Plain-language scope: A portable testing unit has a graphic display panel with an attached electronic sound sensing device in a housing. Per the summary and abstract, the sensing device activates an LED when a sound of 75 dB or greater occurs within ten feet. The panel displays pictorial and/or language elements telling passersby an inspection is underway and warning against tampering, plus a hand-hold cutout. Per the detailed description, a microphone feeds an amplifier, signal detector with delay circuit (to reject false readings such as slamming doors), and comparison to a reference; above 75 dB a red test LED lights. A green LED indicates the unit is on; an on/off switch is provided. An optical sensor can optionally be added to test strobe-light alert devices for the hearing impaired. In use, one tester is placed within ten feet of each alarm; the inspector briefly (about one second) actuates each alarm at the central station, then retrieves the testers and reads the test lights.
Not established by the excerpt: The full claim set and claim language; the complete schematic and block-diagram details (FIGS. 4–5 are only partly described); actual dimensions, materials, battery specifics, or microprocessor programming; whether the optical-sensor embodiment is claimed; and any litigation, ownership transfer, validity, or prior art.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:54:09 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6380854. 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.