Invalidity dossier
US 9133177
Added 9/23/2026, 5:40:40 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 — US9133177B2
Title: Ambipolar small molecule hosts for phosphorescent guest emitters
Patent number / application: US9133177B2; application US13/379,595; earlier publication US20120168732A1.
Assignee: Georgia Tech Research Corp (original and current assignee as listed).
Key dates (as listed; dates are assumptions, not legal conclusions): priority date 2009-06-24; filing date 2010-06-21; publication of US20120168732A1 on 2012-07-05; patent granted and US9133177B2 published 2015-09-15. Status shown as "Expired – Fee Related," with an adjusted expiration of 2032-06-03.
Inventors: Yadong Zhang, Carlos Zuniga, Gaelle Deshayes, Julie Leroy, Stephen Barlow, Seth R. Marder, Xuyang He, Sung-jin Kim, Bernard Kippelen.
Purpose and plain-language scope: The patent concerns "ambipolar small molecule hosts for phosphorescent guest emitters"—that is, small-molecule host materials intended for use with phosphorescent emitters (as in organic light-emitting device contexts). The recurring structural motif in the excerpted text is an oxadiazole ring: the prior-art keywords include "group," "ambipolar," "oxadiazole," and "mmol," and the listed chemical compounds center on oxadiazole-containing structures. The excerpt shows a generic formula, [1*]C1=C([2*])C([3*])=CC(C2=NN=C([Ar])O2)=C1, and numerous specific compounds built around oxadiazole cores bearing carbazole-type (indoline/dicarbazolyl) substituents and various solubilizing or polymerizable side groups (for example, norbornene, methacrylate, and alkyl/aryl ether groups). Several reaction schemes and intermediates appear, such as hydrazide intermediates and cyclization steps using POCl₃, suggesting synthesis routes.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9133177B2/en
What the excerpt does not establish: The supplied text is excerpted and does not include the full claim set, specification, definitions of substituents [1*], [2*], [3*], or [Ar], device examples, performance data, or the complete written description. It therefore does not establish the precise metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, the number and scope of claims, or any technical results.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:43:24 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9133177. 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.