US 7950614

I'll search for authoritative information on this patent, including any 2026 litigation activity.

The generic searches returned unrelated results. Let me try more targeted queries.

Let me verify assignee/ownership and check for any litigation or PTAB activity specific to this patent.

Summary of US Patent 7,950,614

I located the patent and pulled authoritative bibliographic data. Note: my searches for any 2026 CAFC docket or other litigation activity returned no results specific to this patent (see caveats below).

Bibliographic Data

Abstract (as published)

"A system for removable installation and nondestructive removal and reinstallation of a stationary mast from which to suspend equipment on articulated arms for point-of-need positioning thereof includes parallel headers extending in a first horizontal direction, each with fasteners adjustably movable along its top for releasable connection to building structure over the headers, for selective emplacement of the headers relative to the building structure. Cross members extending under the headers are releasably fastened to the headers for emplacement, stationary but variable, along the headers. A mast depends from the cross members to support articulated arms and medical equipments."

Plain-Language Overview of the Independent Claims

Claim 1 — The overall system. A building structure (floor, overhead beams, ceiling below the beams) combined with a mounting system that lets a stationary mast be installed, removed, and reinstalled without destructive work. Two parallel horizontal headers sit in the plenum space between the beams and the ceiling, running perpendicular to the beams. Each header carries fasteners that can slide along its top so it can be bolted to the overhead beams at chosen spots. A cross member runs underneath the headers, across them, and is releasably bolted to them — so it can be repositioned anywhere along the headers' length. The mast hangs down from the cross member through the ceiling to hold the articulated arms and equipment. Result: the mast can be stationarily emplaced and non-destructively re-emplaced in the horizontal plane.

Claim 3 — The mounting structure itself (standalone apparatus framing). A mounting structure for fastening to two or more parallel overhead beams, comprising: two spaced, generally horizontal headers, each releasably fastened below and to at least two of the parallel beams; at least one cross member extending between the two headers; a ceiling disposed below the headers and cross member; and a vertical mast affixed to and depending downwardly from the cross member through the ceiling.

Dependent Claims (brief)

• Claim 2 — adds sway braces releasably and adjustably connecting the mast to the headers to distribute load.
• Claim 4 — adds releasable fasteners for headers-to-beams and cross-member-to-headers.
• Claim 5 — releasing those fasteners allows selective horizontal positioning of the headers.
• Claim 6 — releasing fasteners allows selective positioning of the cross member along the headers.
• Claim 7 — a sway brace extending from a header near the distal end of the mast.
• Claim 8 — headers configured for perpendicular attachment to the beams.
• Claim 9 — articulated arms on the distal end of the vertical mast.

Prior Art Context

The specification identifies U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 2004/0159761 A1 (Lipsky) — "Overhead support apparatus for a multi-purpose operating room" — and expressly characterizes it as "not relevant to this invention but only to certain structures included in it." The patent cites 21 references total (including US 3,931,452 to Nilsson, US 5,314,156 to Unistrut, and US 6,089,518 to Johnson Medical Development), and has been cited by 3 later documents (US 2009/0188197 A1 Irizarry; CN 103353050 A; US 2021/0233437 A1 Vincil).

Uncertainty / Caveats

1. No CAFC 2026 docket found. My searches for a 2026 Federal Circuit docket or any litigation involving this patent number returned no pertinent hits. I cannot affirmatively certify that no such proceeding exists, but I found no evidence of one. This is consistent with the patent's status as Expired – Lifetime and its ownership by an individual inventor.
2. The assignee field is listed as "Individual" with no corporate assignee — Google Patents itself cautions that listed assignees "may be inaccurate" and that no legal analysis was performed. I have no independent USPTO assignment-record confirmation.
3. An oddity worth flagging: the patent is classified under G09F (signs/labels attaching means), particularly G09F 2007/186 ("suspended, e.g. secured to the ceiling"). This classification sits oddly with a medical-equipment mast mounting structure, but I am reporting the classification literally as published rather than correcting it.
4. Issue-date discrepancy to note: the Google Patents bibliographic block lists the grant/publication date as 2011-05-31, while one legal-events entry shows a "STCF / PATENTED CASE" code dated 2011-05-11 (a pre-grant status entry). The operative issue date is 2011-05-31.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 7950614 across patent litigation trackers and court sources.

Initial broad searches returned unrelated results. Let me try targeted litigation databases.

Let me try more specific litigation databases and the patent title.

Result: No litigation found involving U.S. Patent No. 7,950,614

I searched patent-litigation trackers and court-oriented sources for the specific number 7,950,614 ("Medical equipment overhead mounting structure," Stephen A. Strobridge, filed 2005‑04‑22, granted 2011‑05‑31). I found no district court, CAFC, PTAB, or ITC proceeding asserting or challenging this patent. I cannot list plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, filing date, or outcome because no such case surfaced.

What the searches did and did not show

• Google Patents page for US7950614B1 (the authoritative source in the record) lists only:
  • 21 backward citations (prior art cited, e.g., US3931452A; US20040159761A1/Lipsky, etc.)
  • 3 "Cited By" documents (later publications that cited it: US20090188197A1 Irizarry, CN103353050A, US20210233437A1) — these are citations, not lawsuits
  • Legal status: Expired – Lifetime, with maintenance fees paid at 4, 8, and 12 years. No "Litigations" tab, no litigation entries.
• Transaction record beyond the patent itself: Only prosecution and maintenance-fee events appear (grant 2011; fee payments 2014, 2018, 2022). Nothing indicating enforcement activity or assignment to a litigating entity.

Important caution — do not conflate with the "‘614 Patent" in ACI v. MPH

One search hit referenced an "‘614 Patent" in a complaint by ACI against MPH concerning a "Ranger EZ Radar Product." That is a different patent and a different case. The shorthand "‘614" there refers to another patent (an ACI radar-related patent), not U.S. 7,950,614. Per your instruction to interpret identifiers literally and not auto-correct, I am flagging this rather than treating it as a hit. Likewise, other results mentioning numbers such as 9,658,614 (LightGuide v. Amazon) are unrelated.

Confidence and caveats

• I have high confidence there is no publicly indexed litigation naming this specific patent, but I could not complete a full sweep of PACER/RPX UnifiedPortal case lists within the search budget, so I cannot state this as an absolute negative for unindexed or very obscure filings.
• If you need a definitive confirmation, the authoritative checks would be: the USPTO Patent Litigation Docket / Patent Examination Data, RPX Insight ("Litigation" tab for patent 7,950,614), Unified Patents Portal case list filtered to this patent, and a PACER docket search. Those are the sources I attempted to reach but could not fully query here.

Bottom line: Based on available information, no litigation is known to involve U.S. Patent No. 7,950,614, and I will not supply case details rather than fabricate them.

I'll verify the structured "no proceedings" finding against public sources before writing up.

No hits tying this patent to an AIA trial. Let me run a few more targeted checks before concluding.

I searched PTAB-specific sources, litigation trackers, and the Federal Circuit docket for this patent number. I found no AIA trial proceedings, which corroborates the structured block. Below is the write-up, with that absence treated as the finding rather than papered over.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 7,950,614: 0 — zero IPRs, zero PGRs, zero CBMs; therefore zero claims invalidated, zero claims sustained, zero settlements, and zero institution denials (the breakdown by status is not "0-4-0-0-0" but literally an empty set), which gives a defendant no PTAB record to lean on in either direction: the patent has never been stress-tested at the Board, so nothing is "hardened" by survival and nothing is canceled for you either — your real leverage is that the patent expired on 2025-04-22 and, per the litigation summary, has never been asserted in any publicly indexed case.

This matches the canonical structured data supplied to me: "The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest." My independent web checks turned up nothing to the contrary, so I am reporting a genuine negative, not an unverified blank.

Per-proceeding detail

There are no proceedings to itemize. Nothing follows the heading "### {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner}" because no such number exists, and I will not invent one. If you were expecting a list, the correct response from this analysis is: none on file.

What I checked, and the near-misses I rejected

Because a bare "nothing found" is weak evidence, here is the negative-result audit trail:

⚠️ Contradiction/decoy flag — do not auto-correct these into a hit. Two search results superficially resemble this patent but are different identifiers, and I am reporting them literally rather than treating them as the same patent:

1. Nano Precision Medical Requester v. Delpor, Inc., Appeal 2016-002917 (PTAB, 2016-08-09) — this is Patent 7,955,614 B2 (an inter partes reexamination of a drug-delivery patent by Martin/Boiarski). That is 7,955,614, not 7,950,614. Different patent, and it is also a pre-AIA inter partes reexamination appeal, not an AIA trial. See the Board decision: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/nano-precision-medical-requester-895522412
2. PGR2021-00093, KioSoft Technologies LLC v. PayRange Inc. — involves Patent 10,891,614, unrelated subject matter (payment systems).
3. "ACI v. MPH" '614 patent — flagged as a different patent in the earlier litigation section; I carry that flag forward.

Also carried forward from the prior sections: the Google Patents "Cited By" list (US 2009/0188197 A1 Irizarry; CN 103353050 A; US 2021/0233437 A1 Vincil) is a list of citations, not petitioners. A third-party citation of a patent is not a validity challenge.

Strategic summary

Claim status — nothing canceled, nothing sustained, nothing narrowed. All nine claims (independent claims 1 and 3; dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) remain in exactly the form in which they issued on 2011-05-31. No claim has ever been canceled or confirmed in an AIA trial, so there is no FWD to quote and no claim-level disposition to report. Every claim is, in PTAB terms, UNTESTED.

Estoppel landscape — there is none. Because no IPR/PGR/CBM was ever instituted, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel was never triggered against anyone. No petitioner (and no privy) is barred from raising any ground, and no defendant inherits a "grounds you could have raised" problem. Practical consequence: if you ever did want Board review of this patent, the entire prior-art universe is unencumbered by prior petitioner estoppel — but see the expiration point below, which makes that largely academic. Note also an eligibility wrinkle: this patent was filed 2005-04-22 and granted 2011-05-31, i.e., pre-AIA. That means PGR is unavailable (PGR applies only to patents with an effective filing date on or after 2013-03-16), and CBM would require claims directed to a financial product or service, which the overhead-mast claims here plainly are not. IPR is technically the only AIA vehicle, subject to the one-year § 315(b) bar.

Pattern signals — the absence is the signal. No serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents–type filing appears in the chain), no Patent Owner appeals to the Federal Circuit, and — per the prior litigation section — no district court case in which an IPR could have been spurred by a § 315(b) deadline. The pattern of a patent that is (a) individually owned, (b) never asserted, and (c) expired on 2025-04-22 (its 12-year maintenance fee was paid in 2022, so it ran to full term rather than lapsing early) is a patent that never generated the commercial friction that produces IPRs. Well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs; this one never did.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are a defendant, the expiration, not PTAB, is your primary defense.
The 20-year term ran from the 2005-04-22 filing date, and Google Patents records an anticipated expiration of 2025-04-22 with status Expired – Lifetime. As of today (2026-09-29), no prospective injunction and no ongoing royalty is available — the patent right has ended, and a demand letter demanding a forward-looking license for current or future conduct is seeking payment for unpatented activity. Say so in your response.

2. Treat any allegation of past damages carefully — that is the only live theory.
An expired patent can still support a claim for past infringement, but recovery is capped by the six-year lookback of 35 U.S.C. § 286 measured from the filing of a complaint. Substantively that points at a shrinking window of pre-2025-04-22 conduct, and only if suit is actually filed. I flag this as the residual exposure; I am not opining on the merits of any such claim, and nothing in the PTAB record bears on it.

3. Do not promise a client an IPR-based kill shot.
There is no FWD to hand them, no canceled claim to cite, and — because the patent has expired — an IPR would be of little practical defensive value even though a petitioner could theoretically file one. Your ammunition is § 286, the expiration date, and whatever invalidity/non-infringement defenses exist under § 282 in court.

4. Verify the negatives at the authoritative sources before relying on them in a filing.
The absence of PTAB activity is a finding I derived from the ODP ingest plus web corroboration, and I could not complete an exhaustive terminal-by-terminal sweep. For a filing-grade confirmation, check:

• PTAB E2E / USPTO PTAB API (patent-scoped proceeding search): https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/swagger-ui and https://ptab.uspto.gov/
• USPTO Patent Center for this application (US 11/111,596) and the reexamination/trial tabs: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
• CourtListener / RECAP for any CAFC appeal naming 7,950,614: https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%227950614%22
• PACER for any unindexed district court complaint raising the patent.

5. If you find a live proceeding I did not, reconsider the § 315(b) clock immediately.
Because no IPR exists today, no § 315(b) one-year bar has started for any party. If a complaint against you is served and you intend to petition, that one-year window from service is the deadline that governs — and with a hard 2025 expiration date on the patent, the economics of petitioning almost certainly do not justify it.

Bottom line for a defendant: there are no PTAB proceedings on US 7,950,614 — none filed, none instituted, none decided, none appealed. Nothing about this patent has been "hardened" by surviving Board review, and nothing has been canceled for you. The controlling fact is not a PTAB outcome; it is that the patent expired on 2025-04-22 and, on the evidence gathered across this analysis, has never been litigated at all.

I'll verify the assignment record and ownership signals for this patent before writing up the sections.

Found a key lead — the inventor appears tied to Healthcare Technology Corporation. Let me verify the assignment chain and that company connection.

I've gathered what's verifiable. Note up front: my direct queries against the USPTO Assignment Center (assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov) returned no retrievable record for US 7,950,614, and I could not load the Assignment Center UI itself. I am therefore reporting the assignment record based on (a) the authoritative Google Patents legal-events block in the record and (b) targeted searches — and I am explicitly not inventing reel/frame numbers.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check: No evidence of a multi-inventor team, no evidence of inventor departure or assignment-away. The sole-inventor + company-president pattern is the classic small-operating-company founder profile, not a fire-sale precursor. There is no second inventor whose exit could be tracked, so the "all inventors leave within 12 months" red flag is structurally not applicable.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: the record shows "Individual" for both Original Assignee and Current Assignee on Google Patents. In USPTO/Google Patents convention this means no assignment was recorded at filing or thereafter — the patent stands in the personal name of Stephen A. Strobridge.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes — strongly supported. Strobridge's company Healthcare Technology Corporation designs and manufactures "Accu-Mount Support Systems," described in trade press as "pre-engineered and prefabricated overhead surgical boom and light mounting solutions" that "attach medical equipment such as surgical lights, monitors, cameras, equipment management systems and anesthesia booms to an overhead building structure," offered in Series 100 / 200 / 300 / 400 based on building structure, interstitial space, and loading/deflection criteria. That description tracks the patent's stated object ("pre-engineered, pre-fabricated, relocatable and repeatable system") and its claim structure (headers, cross members, mast, sway braces) almost line for line — including HTC's marketing claim of "no need for diagonal sway bracing" in some configurations, which maps directly onto claim 2 / claim 7 (sway braces "may or may not be required" per the spec).
  • Source: HTC / Medical Construction & Design features, e.g. https://www.healthcaretec.com/project/partnering-for-purpose-a-new-approach-to-overhead-equipment-supports/ and https://www.healthcaretec.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FdMCD0717_59-63-PA-Products_HTC.pdf
• Primary line of business: Design and fabrication of pre-fabricated structural mounting/support systems (structural steel and strut) for hospital operating rooms, hybrid ORs, imaging and patient-care spaces. HTC has reportedly shipped "thousands" of systems across the U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean over ~20 years.
• Current status: Appears operating (HTC project features and trade coverage continue at least through 2021). I found no bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition record for HTC. Caveat: this is based on company self-published marketing and trade press, not on any registry or SEC filing — HTC is private and files no SEC reports.

Contradiction flagged (per your instruction): There is a genuine tension between the legal record ("assignee = Individual") and the commercial reality (the inventor's operating company sells the product). This is not necessarily inconsistent — many founders hold patents personally and license or practice them through their company — but it means the patent is not owned by the operating entity. Any later-authenticated HTC assignment to or from the individual would change the analysis.

Assignment timeline

Finding: no recorded assignments were located for US 7,950,614.

• The Google Patents Legal Events block for this patent contains only fee/status events: a 2011-05-11 "STCF / PATENTED CASE" pre-grant status entry, then maintenance-fee payments at 2014-10-16 (4th year), 2018-11-30 (8th year, small entity), and 2022-11-14 (12th year, small entity). There is no "ASGN," "Assignment," "Change of Name," "Security Agreement," or "Release" event anywhere in the chain.
• My searches for an Assignment Center record keyed to US 7,950,614 / application 11/111,596 returned no hits. I could not open the Assignment Center record page itself.
• Consequently there are no reel/frame numbers, no conveyances, no assignors, no assignees, and no correspondents of record to report. I will not supply placeholder reel/frame values.

What this absence means: Per the framing above, an empty assignment chain normally means the original owner still owns the patent — here, Stephen A. Strobridge personally. The patent issued, was maintained to the 12-year fee in 2022, and terminated by anticipated expiration on 2025-04-22 still in the inventor's hands.

Caveat on completeness: I could not complete an authoritative query of assignmentcenter.uspto.gov (the tool budget was exhausted mid-verification). Absence of an indexed assignment is a strong but not absolute negative; the definitive check is a reel/frame search by patent number at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ directly.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7950614
    2005 : Filed by Stephen A Strobridge
         : No assignment recorded
    2011 : Patent issued to individual
    2014 : Maintenance fee paid year 4
    2018 : Maintenance fee paid year 8
    2022 : Maintenance fee paid year 12
    2025 : Anticipated expiration

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. No transfer of any kind is recorded; the patent never left the individual inventor. No "IP / Holdings / Ventures / Licensing" entity appears anywhere in the record.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. The inventor and sole owner (Stephen A. Strobridge) does not match any listed NPE/asserter (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities). The documented commercial actor, Healthcare Technology Corporation, is a product manufacturer, not an asserter directory entry.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present / not applicable. With zero recorded assignments there is no correspondent of record to evaluate. This signal cannot fire.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Zero transfers in any window, let alone consecutive chained LLC transfers in <24 months.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. No transfer exists, and (consistent with your earlier litigation section) no infringement suit naming this patent is known. There is nothing for a transfer to precede.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding, no assignment out of an estate, no reorganized/acquired patent-holder appears. HTC shows no bankruptcy record in the material reviewed.

7. Privateering — Not present. No transfer from the operating company to a third-party NPE. The inventor retained personal ownership throughout.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. Chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates, so far as the record shows, at the individual inventor.

Verdict

Insufficient data — specifically, no assignment record exists to analyze.

The assignment chain for US 7,950,614 is empty: Google Patents lists only maintenance-fee events (2014-10-16, 2018-11-30, 2022-11-14) and no assignment, security-interest, or change-of-name recordation, and I found no Assignment Center entry keyed to the patent. The only ownership datum is "Individual," i.e. Stephen A. Strobridge personally, and the patent expired 2025-04-22 still in his hands. There is no shell transfer, no known asserter, no repeat correspondent, no cascading chain, and no defensive-aggregator endpoint — so no NPE signal is affirmatively present; the correct call is an absence of data rather than a negative finding about intent.

For verification: search patent number 7950614 at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (mirror: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html). If that search also returns nothing, the individual-inventor ownership reported here is conclusive.

Residual uncertainty: (i) I could not directly load the Assignment Center result page, so an unindexed record cannot be excluded with certainty; (ii) the legal record (individual owner) and the commercial record (HTC sells an embodying product) diverge, and if HTC is in fact the owner or an exclusive licensee under an unrecorded agreement, that would change the "original assignee" characterization — but no document in the record supports that.

I'll research the cited prior-art references to ground each description accurately, rather than relying on memory.

Let me research more of the cited references to ground the descriptions accurately.

Prior-Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,950,614 B1

1. Scope, identifier verification, and method

Patent verified as printed: US 7,950,614 B1 — "Medical equipment overhead mounting structure." Application US 11/111,596; filed/priority 2005‑04‑22; granted/publication 2011‑05‑31. Inventor: Stephen A. Strobridge. Assignee: Individual. Status: Expired – Lifetime (anticipated expiration 2025‑04‑22). 9 claims, two independent (claims 1 and 3).

I interpreted the number literally and excluded unrelated "‑614"/similar-number hits that surfaced in searching — e.g., the ACI v. MPH "’614 patent," 9,658,614 (LightGuide), and 9,629,769 — none of which is US 7,950,614.

Basis for this analysis: the authoritative full text of US 7,950,614 (including its 21 cited references with dates), supplemented by targeted retrieval of the four closest family members (US 3,931,452; US 5,314,156; US 6,089,518; US 2004/0159761). Where I describe a reference from its title/assignee only (i.e., I could not retrieve the body text within the search budget), I say so explicitly and do not assert technical detail I did not verify.

Key claim elements to test against prior art (per the specification's reference numerals: beams 10, ceiling 11, floor 12, headers 20, cross members 30, mast 40, sway braces 50):

• Claim 1 (independent): building structure (floor + overhead beams + ceiling below beams); parallel headers in the space between beams and ceiling, oriented perpendicular to the beams; header fasteners adjustably movable along the top of each header for releasable fastening to the beams; a cross member under the headers, releasably fastened, positionable along the headers; a mast depending from the cross member through the ceiling; stationary emplacement with nondestructive reemplacement in a horizontal plane.
• Claim 3 (independent): mounting structure to two or more parallel overhead beams — two spaced horizontal headers each releasably fastened below at least two beams; ≥1 cross member between the headers; ceiling below the headers/cross member; vertical mast affixed to and depending downwardly from the cross member through the ceiling.

Anticipation under §102 requires every element as arranged in a single reference. As shown below, no cited reference does that.

2. The 21 cited references (as listed in US 7,950,614)

Note on #21: the patent text lists 2003‑02‑18 / 2004‑08‑19; a secondary source (Unified Patents) showed 2003‑02‑17 / 2004‑08‑18. Per the operating rule, I use the patent text values above.

Not prior art: the three "Cited By" documents (US 2009/0188197 A1 – Irizarry; CN 103353050 A; US 2021/0233437 A1 – Vincil) post‑date the 2005 priority date and therefore are not §102/§103 prior art against this patent.

3. Reference-by-reference relevance and §102 assessment

Tier 1 — Closest art (same field: ceiling/overhead support of medical equipment in treatment rooms)

① US 3,931,452 A — Nilsson, "Device for attachment of ceiling-supended equipment" (1972‑09‑26 / 1976‑01‑06)

Description (retrieved): A girder structure (2) formed of two longitudinal girders (21, 22) whose upper flanges are secured into the concrete ceiling/joists of an operating theatre, X‑ray or examination room; the lower flanges permit attachment of ceiling‑suspended equipment (anaesthetic unit, surgical lights, a lateral girder carrying an X‑ray apparatus, and a surgical distribution board) by clamps/anchor plates. The structure is recessed flush with the ceiling, is torsion‑resistant, and is covered from below by removable cover plates with quick couplings. The stated object is to permit later rearrangement/repositioning of equipment placement after the planning stage.
Most pertinent claims: 1, 3, 4 (overhead medical‑equipment support fixed to building structure; space between structure and ceiling; equipment suspended below).
§102 — does it anticipate? No. It does not disclose the claimed combination of (a) parallel headers perpendicular to the building beams with fasteners sliding along the top of each header, (b) a separate cross member fastened under the headers and positionable along them, and (c) a mast depending from that cross member through the ceiling. In Nilsson the equipment mounts to the girders themselves, which are recessed into the ceiling rather than carried below beams by top‑mounted adjustable fasteners. Relevance is high, but as §103 art, not §102.
Cross-reference: US 6,089,518 (below) expressly cites CH‑A5‑568 459, "corresponding to U.S. Pat. No. 3,931,452" — confirming this Nilsson reference is the acknowledged ancestor of the ceiling‑suspended‑equipment field.

② US 6,089,518 A — Johnson Medical Development Pte Ltd., "Mounting device for hospital equipment, medical support service unit therefor and service mobile" (1994‑11‑15 / 2000‑07‑18)

Description (retrieved): A supportive structure attached to the ceiling of a hospital room comprising support beams and profiles that enclose gas and electrical connections (gas‑tight electrical enclosure). In one form a rectangular framework of beams (1, 2, 3, 4) is attached by several vertical beams (5–12) to mounting members (18) fixed to the ceiling, with support profiles for the equipment; a separate service unit hangs from a pivotable arm and a bearing mounted in the ceiling. Designed for intensive‑care rooms, separating gas from electrical supply.
Most pertinent claims: 1, 3, 4 (framework of beams attached to ceiling‑mounted members supporting equipment).
§102 — does it anticipate? No. It discloses a ceiling‑attached beam framework and ceiling bearings, but not the claimed geometry: two headers perpendicular to overhead building beams, header fasteners adjustable along the header tops, a cross member releasably fastened beneath and positionable along the headers, and a mast passing through the ceiling from that cross member. Its framework sits as a rectangle near the ceiling with equipment suspended by a pivot arm/bearing — a different arrangement. §103 art, not §102.

③ US 5,314,156 A — Unistrut International Corp., "Channel support system" (1992‑03‑25 / 1994‑05‑24)

Description (retrieved): An adjustable support structure built on a support beam extending along a longitudinal axis with two outwardly facing, generally U‑shaped framing channels separated by a web (with apertures in the web for bolt fasteners). The disclosure emphasizes adjustability: bracing members mount the beam at various locations, and a telescopic support column (three sections with spaced apertures and selectable bolts, plus fine height adjustment) supports the beam/structures. The background expressly names medical equipment such as X‑ray machines supported from a vertically upper (ceiling) location, and notes the desirability of supporting a beam laterally displaced from a suitable vertical support point.
Most pertinent claims: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 (support beam/channel, adjustability, bracing, column).
§102 — does it anticipate? No. It provides channel beams, adjustability, and column/bracing concepts highly relevant to the headers (20) and sway braces (50), but it does not show two parallel headers perpendicular to building beams with top‑mounted, adjustably movable fasteners plus a cross member fastened beneath them carrying a mast through the ceiling. Strong §103 candidate, especially for claim 2 (bracing).

④ US 2004/0159761 A1 — Lipsky, "Overhead support apparatus for a multi-purpose operating room" (2003‑02‑18 / 2004‑08‑19)

Description (retrieved): A set of primary rails connected to the ceiling with at least two support carriages movable longitudinally along the room and carrying trolleys movable laterally, each mounting an overhead medical instrument so it can be moved between an operating position and a stored position.
Most pertinent claims: 1, 3, 9 (overhead support of medical equipment; articulated/movable equipment).
§102 — does it anticipate? No — and the applicant agrees. The specification states: "The Lipsky prior art, mentioned above, discloses an overhead instrument support, including X and Y rails forming a trolley system, whereby medical equipment suspended from the system is freely movable… The mounting system and structure of the present invention … is fixed releasably and removably." The applicant characterizes Lipsky as "not relevant to this invention but only to certain structures included in it." Lipsky's rails/carriages/trolleys are a movable trolley system, not a stationarily emplaced mast with nondestructive re‑emplacement. It is §103 art at most, and even then only for secondary structural features.

⑤ US 5,456,655 A — Morris, C. Van, "Ambulatory support system for patients" (1993‑07‑30 / 1995‑10‑10)

Description (retrieved): An overhead system (13) with side support rails (14, 16) mounted adjacent the ceiling/wall and a heavy glide rail (18) traversing and supported by them; a support carrier (28) travels along the glide rail, with accessory dollies (40) for trapeze, fold‑up table, IV, monitors, etc. It is fundamentally an X‑Y overhead track/gantry for patient support and accessory suspension.
Most pertinent claims: 1, 3, 7 (overhead rails spanning a room, carriage, accessory suspension).
§102 — does it anticipate? No. The rails are wall/ceiling‑mounted glide rails with a traveling carrier — a trolley system, not the claimed perpendicular headers / under‑headers cross member / through‑ceiling mast. §103 art only.

Tier 2 — Ceiling/beam support, suspension, and overhead‑lift references

Tier 3 — Peripheral structural references (cited for general framing/suspension features; general relevance only)

Each of the following is cited, per its title, for general structural arts (truss/lattice frameworks, overhead suspension, adjustable supports, brackets). Based on title/assignee alone (bodies not retrieved), none discloses the perpendicular‑header + under‑headers cross member + through‑ceiling mast combination, and none anticipates any claim. They are, at most, background §103 art:

4. Bottom line on §102

• No single cited reference discloses every element of independent claim 1 or claim 3 as arranged. Specifically, none of the 21 references shows the combination of (i) parallel headers oriented perpendicular to overhead building beams and occupying the plenum space between the beams and the suspended ceiling, (ii) header fasteners adjustably movable along the header tops for releasable beam attachment, (iii) a cross member releasably fastened beneath the headers and positionable along their length, and (iv) a mast depending from that cross member through the ceiling for stationary emplacement and nondestructive re‑emplacement.
• Accordingly, no dependent claim is anticipated either (each dependent claim incorporates its independent claim's elements).
• The closest references — US 3,931,452 (Nilsson), US 6,089,518 (Johnson Medical Development), and US 5,314,156 (Unistrut) — are the most relevant for a §103 obviousness analysis (ceiling‑suspended medical equipment support, ceiling‑attached beam framework, and adjustable channel/bracing systems, respectively). US 2004/0159761 (Lipsky) and US 5,456,655 (Morris) are overhead trolley/gantry systems, which the specification itself distinguishes, and are §103 art (at best) for secondary features such as the articulated‑arm/equipment interface of claim 9.
• The remaining references are cumulative/background structural art.

5. Caveats and confidence

1. Descriptions: I directly retrieved and grounded the descriptions for US 3,931,452; US 5,314,156; US 6,089,518; US 2004/0159761; and US 5,456,655. Descriptions for the Tier 2/3 references are drawn from their titles and the patent's own citation table, and are labeled as such — I did not verify their bodies, so I do not assert specific features for them.
2. "Potentially anticipates": I applied the strict §102 standard (every element in one reference). Where a reference is only a building block, I identified it as §103 art rather than overstating a §102 mapping.
3. Date discrepancy flagged (per rule not to auto‑correct): US 2004/0159761 A1 is dated 2003‑02‑18 / 2004‑08‑19 in the patent text vs. 2003‑02‑17 / 2004‑08‑18 in a secondary source. I used the patent text and flag the conflict.
4. No litigation/2026 activity: consistent with the earlier sections, no court/PTAB/ITC proceeding involving US 7,950,614 surfaced; the patent is Expired – Lifetime. This does not affect the prior‑art analysis above.
5. Classification oddity (reported literally, not corrected): the patent is classified in G09F 7/18 and G09F 2007/186 ("suspended… secured to the ceiling") — a signs/labels class — rather than a medical‑equipment or building‑support class, which is unusual for this subject matter.

If you want, I can next assemble a claim chart matching each independent‑claim limitation to the three Tier‑1 references (columns for disclosure/§102/§103), which would be the natural next step for an invalidity or examination‑support memo.

I'll gather authoritative content on the key prior-art references cited on the patent's face so my § 103 analysis is grounded in what those references actually disclose.

Good — Nilsson and Lipsky content confirmed. Now let me pull the remaining structurally-relevant references cited on the face of the patent.

Let me examine the references most relevant to the "fasteners adjustable along the top of the header for releasable connection to building structure" limitation.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 7,950,614 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Building on the bibliographic and litigation sections above. The patent is Expired – Lifetime, but I analyze validity as if contested (e.g., for reexamination or defensive purposes). This is technical analysis, not a legal conclusion.

1. Framing and governing standard

The § 103 inquiry follows Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966): (a) scope/content of the claims, (b) differences from the prior art, (c) level of ordinary skill, (d) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination is obvious not only where prior art "teaches, suggests, or motivates" it, but also where the claimed arrangement is "the product of ordinary creativity, not invention," i.e., a predictable use of known elements according to their established functions.

Level of ordinary skill (proposed): A mechanical or architectural engineer (bachelor's degree) with ~2–4 years' experience designing overhead structural supports for surgical suites and critical-care rooms; or, alternatively, a designer with an associate's degree and 5+ years in hospital equipment mounting. Such a person is familiar with: strut-channel metal framing (Unistrut), suspended ceiling grids, hospital equipment booms/arms, and the deflection-driven design of ceiling-mounted booms.

Key claim-1 limitations to satisfy:

2. The prior art on the face of the patent (verified)

Nilsson, US 3,931,452 — "Device for attachment of ceiling-supended equipment" (1976). The closest reference. Discloses an operating-theatre support of "two longitudinal girders 21, 22" forming a "girder structure 2," secured in the overhead structure, with "lower flanges which permit attachment of the ceiling-suspended equipment," recessed so that the "lower edge … is roughly on a level with the intermediate ceiling." Ceiling-suspended items include the anaesthetic unit (secured "by four clamps"), the surgical distribution board, and operation lighting (main lamp 11 / satellite lamp 12 on swiveling arms). Expressly states the object is to permit "improvements and alterations of the selected equipment, and especially of its placing, after the planning stage and … after some time of use," and states the girder structure "can without difficulty be of standard form."
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3931452 ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/[3931452](/patent/3931452).html

Unistrut Int'l, US 5,314,156 — "Channel support system" (1994). Discloses a support-beam channel profile with apertures in the web through which bolts fasten mounting devices "at a number of locations," diagonal bracing members received in side channels and secured by a fastener/washer that "wedges into the side channel," and a telescopic support column with apertures and bolts for adjustment. Field is expressly "support structures … for supporting items from a vertically upper location such as a ceiling," with the "common use … to support medical equipment such as x-ray machines."
Source: https://www.everypatent.com/comp/pat5314156.html

Johnson Medical Development (US 6,089,518) — ceiling-attached hospital supportive structure: "a rectangular framework of beams (1,2,3,4) attached by several vertical beams (5–12) to mounting members (18) attached to the ceiling, said framework being horizontally close to the ceiling," with support profiles and a support plate for equipment; aims at rigidity adequate to "support also heavy equipment."
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6089518

Fastway Fasteners, US 4,041,657 — "Fixture support for grid type ceiling" (1977). Clips mount on spaced parallel grid elements; a bridging bar spans between them, mounted in vertically spaced openings; a hanger suspends a fixture; the bar and hanger are readily insertable/removable and adjustable lengthwise along the bar. Stated object: "decrease the necessity of providing specialized supports for each different mounting situation."
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4041657 ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/29/ed/9c/651a00707c5a79/US4041657.pdf

Lipsky, US 2004/0159761 A1 — overhead support for a multi-purpose operating room: "primary rails connected to the ceiling" with "at least two support carriages engaging the primary rails such that the support carriages can be moved in a longitudinal direction," each carriage carrying a medical instrument on a trolley movable in a lateral direction.
Source: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20040159761-A1

Also cited and structurally relevant: US 5,458,655 (Morris — ambulatory/ceiling patient support), US 4,241,347 (Twitchell — three-dimensional lift), US 5,618,017 (De Boer — ceiling supporting plate unit), US 6,637,710 (Canlyte — fixture suspension bracket), US 6,488,097 (PNM — sprinkler head support).

3. Combination A (primary): Nilsson '452 + Unistrut '156

Why Nilsson is the anchor. Nilsson already supplies 1a, 1b (girders in the plenum between the structural ceiling and the intermediate ceiling), 1e's equipment-suspension-through-the-ceiling character, and 1f's purpose — rearrangeability of equipment placement after construction. Its "four clamps" securing the anaesthetic unit to the girders also shows fastening that can be located at a chosen point along the girder.

What Nilsson does not expressly show: (i) beam-engaging fasteners adjustably movable along the top of the header (1c); and (ii) a cross member slidably fastened beneath the headers for a second axis of adjustment (1d).

Why Unistrut '156 supplies both.

• 1c: Unistrut's channel beam with web apertures and bolts permits a mounting device to be attached "at a number of locations" along the beam — i.e., a fastener movable along the support member's length for releasable connection to the structure above.
• 1d: Unistrut's bracing/mounting members secured into the side channels of the beam are, structurally, cross members fastened beneath/beside the beam and relocatable along it; Unistrut's bolt-in-channel architecture is the classic slide-and-lock cross-member joint.
• Unistrut also discloses a telescopic support column (mast) — 1e.
• Critically, Unistrut is in the same field (ceiling support of medical equipment, including X-ray apparatus).

Motivation / rationale (KSR-compliant):

1. Same field, same problem. Both address suspending heavy medical equipment from overhead building structure; combination is not analogous-art-remote.
2. Express need in Nilsson. Nilsson's stated object — allowing changes in equipment placement "after the planning stage and … after some time of use" — supplies a direct motivation to substitute/incorporate adjustable, standardized attachment hardware, which is exactly Unistrut's stated purpose (adapting standardized channel to site conditions).
3. Predictable result. Bolting a strut channel to overhead beams through a slotted/apertured top and bolting a cross channel beneath it is a routine mechanical expedient with a predictable outcome (rigid, releasable, repositionable joint). KSR ("combination of familiar elements according to known methods … yield[ing] predictable results").
4. Two-axis adjustability is an obvious design goal in operating-room layouts — Nilsson wants to relocate equipment, and locating a mast both along and across headers merely adds a second, conventional degree of freedom (cf. Lipsky's X–Y rail concept and Fastway's lengthwise bar adjustment).
5. No teaching away. Nilsson embraces repositioning; Unistrut embraces adjustability. Nothing in either disparages a fixed-then-releasable mount.

Counter-argument to expect and why it likely fails: Patentee may argue the "top of the header" adjustable fasteners and the "releasably fastened cross member" are not shown together. But § 103 does not require a single reference to show all; where the missing elements are individually known and the combination is a predictable use, the claim is obvious (KSR).

4. Combination B (independent-claim alternative): Lipsky '761 + Fastway '657 (+ Unistrut '156)

• Lipsky supplies 1b/1e in substance: primary rails fastened to the ceiling, cross-running support carriages movable along the rails, and medical instruments suspended from the carriages. The patent's own specification concedes this overlap: "Lipsky is not relevant to this invention but only to certain structures included in it." That is an admission that structures recited in the claim are present in Lipsky, which greatly weakens any argument that Lipsky is non-analogous.
• Fastway '657 supplies 1d with precision: a bridging bar spanning parallel members, held in releasable openings so it is readily insertable and removable and positionable lengthwise, with hanger means for suspending a fixture — i.e., a cross member releasably fastened to headers and selectively emplaced along their length.
• Unistrut '156 supplies the adjustable bolt-in-channel connection for 1c and the bracing for claim 2.
• Motivation: Fastway expressly seeks to avoid "specialized supports for each different mounting situation" — the very "custom designed, fabricated and installed" practice the '614 specification criticizes. That is a textbook articulated motivation to combine a standardized, adjustable cross-member support with a ceiling-mounted medical-equipment rail system.

The distinction the patent draws over Lipsky — that Lipsky's equipment is freely movable in real time (trolley) whereas the '614 mast is stationarily emplaced — is a difference in use/mode of operation, not structure. Converting a free-sliding carriage into a clamped, stationary carriage by tightening a fastener is an obvious design choice, particularly where the specification itself states that "emplacement" simply means "to install a mast that is stationarily in place … but removable for reemplacement."

5. Claim-by-claim disposition

6. Secondary considerations and specification admissions

No secondary-consideration evidence is on the face of the patent (no unexpected-results data, no commercial-success nexus, no licensing). Two express admissions cut against non-obviousness:

1. The specification frames the invention as a "routinized," pre-engineered kit assembled from "standard or pre-cut components" — the classic hallmark of a predictable, engineering-driven combination, not a surprising discovery.
2. The specification states that "All components are designed to strict deflection criteria" — i.e., the operative design variables (stiffness, mast length, load) are governed by known engineering calculation, which supports the view that the claimed arrangement would have been within the ordinary skill level.

7. Internal inconsistencies to flag (per instructions; not auto-corrected)

1. Claim 1 vs. Abstract/Summary. Claim 1 recites "a system for custom installation and nondestructive removal and reinstallation," whereas the Abstract and Summary recite "removable installation," and the specification's stated object is the opposite of custom work ("facilitates routinized construction … unlike the prior art in which such mounting structures are custom designed and built"). The printed word "custom" in claim 1 is in apparent tension with the specification. I report it literally and flag it as a claim-construction issue; if "custom" is treated as limiting, it arguably helps the patentee distinguish KSR-style standardized-part combinations, but it collides with the written description.
2. Reference numeral error in the specification. The definition of "mounted equipment" says "supported by the mast 20," but the mast is numbered 40 (20 is the headers). Likely a typographical error in the specification; noted, not corrected.

8. Confidence and caveats

• High confidence on Nilsson '452, Unistrut '156, Fastway '657, Johnson '518, and Lipsky '761 content — I retrieved and read their text/abstracts directly (URLs above).
• Moderate confidence on the precise internal teachings of US 5,618,017 (De Boer), US 6,637,710 (Canlyte), US 6,488,097 (PNM), US 4,241,347 (Twitchell), and US 5,458,655 (Morris). My search budget was exhausted before retrieving their full texts; any characterization of those five beyond their titles/abstracts should be verified before being relied on in a filing. None is necessary to my primary combinations, so the outcome is not sensitive to them.
• Ambiguity in Nilsson's geometry. Whether Nilsson's longitudinal girders 21/22 run perpendicular to the building beams or parallel to the joists is not resolved by the retrieved text; I therefore do not rely on Nilsson alone for the claim-1 "perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of said overhead beams" limitation — that element is carried by the claim-3 "at least two beams" logic plus Fastway's perpendicular bridging bar, or by Unistrut's mounting flexibility.
• Litigation: consistent with the earlier section, I found no litigation involving this patent; the § 103 analysis is therefore prospective/defensive only, and the expired status makes it commercially moot except for reexamination-style or portfolio-diligence purposes.
• I did not find, and do not assert, any anticipation under § 102; the references are analyzed only as § 103 combinations.