Invalidity dossier
US 6598982
Rearview mirror alignment device
Current assignee: Magna Donnelly Corp
Added 9/23/2026, 9:38:07 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-v4-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 6,598,982 B2
Rearview Mirror Alignment Device
Bibliographic data (per supplied source): U.S. Patent 6,598,982 B2; application US 09/872,501, filed June 1, 2001; granted July 29, 2003; priority date June 2, 2000; inventor Frank A. Witt; original assignee Donnelly Corp.; current assignee listed as Magna Donnelly Corp; earlier publication US 2002/0048094 A1. Classifications include B60R1/00, B60R1/02, and Y10S362/80. Status listed as "Expired – Fee Related," with anticipated expiration June 1, 2021 (status noted as an assumption, not a legal conclusion).
Purpose: The patent addresses the problem that vehicles are shared among drivers of differing heights and seat positions, so rearview mirrors are frequently misaligned for the next driver, creating blind spots and improper rearward fields of view.
Plain-language scope: The disclosure covers a rearview mirror assembly with an adjustably positioned reflective element, a support or housing, and an "optically-sighted" mirror alignment device. The alignment device includes an illumination source in a housing (typically cylindrical) closed by a cover, positioned adjacent a perimeter of the reflective element or behind it, so it is viewable through the reflective element (for example, through a window opened in the mirror reflector coating). The housing is preferably colored (red or yellow) and the cover colored differently (green). When the driver sees the cover's color, the mirror is properly oriented for that driver. The device is described as adaptable to both interior and exterior mirror assemblies, with the exterior version optionally adjusted by electronic controls that may be positioned via an electric actuator.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6598982/en
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not include the claims, detailed description text, full drawing contents, or the complete list of cited prior-art references (only several actuator-related U.S. patents and an application are mentioned by number). It does not establish claim scope, enforceability, or examination history.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:34:08 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6598982. 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.