Invalidity dossier
US 9629416
Added 9/23/2026, 11:21:42 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 9,629,416 B2
Title: Slip-on footwear with fit features
Patent number: US9629416B2
Application number: US14/038,443
Publication of application: US20140090275A1 (2014-04-03)
Filed: 2013-09-26
Granted / published: 2017-04-25
Priority date (per source, an assumption): 2009-10-06
Inventor(s): Kyle D. Rackiewicz; Mark T. Dinndorf; David R. Swinnerton; Charles L. Caverly
Assignee: Red Wing Shoe Co Inc (original and current, per the source, which disclaims legal analysis)
Legal status: Active, adjusted expiration 2031-08-19 (source notes legal status is an assumption, not a legal conclusion)
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9629416/en
Purpose (plain language): The disclosure addresses slip-on boots, which are quick to put on and take off but whose internal volume is often substantially larger than the wearer's foot, producing a poor, "sloppy" fit in which the foot slides around or the heel slides up and down. The stated aim is a slip-on boot with fit features giving improved fit while still allowing convenient foot entry and exit, plus related methods of use and manufacture.
Scope (plain language, as described): The boot is configured to press against the foot — at least the heel and instep when the foot is raised, as during a step — to prevent inadvertent pull-out, without necessarily applying constant downward pressure or impinging on the foot. In the depicted embodiment (FIGS. 1–6) there are no tightening mechanisms (laces, buckles, straps) in the instep area, nor mechanisms in the calf area above it; some clearance is maintained so clothing does not bunch. Alternative embodiments are said to permit tightening mechanisms, including ones facilitating tucking a pant leg into the boot (FIGS. 7–10). Fit is determined in part by the boot's internal shape.
What the excerpt does not establish: The excerpt is explicitly partial. It does not establish the full claim set, the complete written description or figures, the precise priority chain, or the exact material/construction limitations — and no litigation, ownership-transfer, validity, or prior-art matters are addressed here.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:53:59 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9629416. 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.