Invalidity dossier
US 7335921
Lighting devices using feedback enhanced light emitting diode
Current assignee: Mt Technology Enterprises LLC
Added 9/23/2026, 3:56:56 PM
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 7,335,921 B2
Title: "Lighting devices using feedback enhanced light emitting diode"
Patent number / application: US 7,335,921 B2; Application US 10/431,885.
Inventor(s): John N. Magn and Gene C. Koch (spelling per source).
Dates: Priority date 2002-05-08; filing date 2003-05-08; publication date 2008-02-26 (application published 2004-04-08 as US 20040066824A1). Anticipated expiration 2023-05-08.
Assignee: Original assignee ZEOLUX Corp. Current assignee listed as Mt Technology Enterprises LLC. Reassignment entries also name MT Technology Enterprises, LLC, SAVENERGY INC., Ronald Trice, and MT Technology Enterprises LLC, with the current legal status shown as "Expired – Fee Related."
Purpose / plain-language scope: The source excerpt provides only bibliographic, classification, and procedural data — it includes no abstract, claims, or written description. Based on the title and the "prior art keywords" list (feedback layer, light, layer, feedback, electrode), the invention appears directed to lighting devices that use a feedback-enhanced light emitting diode. Classifications place it in electroluminescent light sources (H05B33/00, H05B33/12, H05B33/14, H05B33/22), semiconductor lasers and vertical-cavity surface-emitting lasers (H01S5/00, H01S5/18, H01S5/183), display drive circuitry (G09G3/22, G09G3/30, G09G3/32), optical elements (G02B26/00, G02B26/08), and organic light-emitting device structures including resonant-cavity and reflective/refractive light-extraction arrangements (H10K50/852, H10K50/856, H10K50/858).
What the excerpt does not establish: It does not supply the claims, the scope of any specific embodiment, the specification, or a stated technical problem. It does not prove the accuracy of assignee listings, inventorship, or legal status — the source itself labels the legal status an assumption and not a legal conclusion. No conclusions are drawn here about validity, infringement, litigation, or prior art.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:51:15 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7335921. 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.