Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Yechezkal Evan Spero v. Mercedes-Benz | Patent Lawsuit 25-1473

Yechezkal Evan Spero v. Mercedes-Benz

25-1473 Fed. Cir. Closed US11208029B2
Get a prior-art report

Patentability filed 21 Feb 2025 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 14 May 2026, with US11208029B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US11208029B2
Application no.
US17/152399
Case no.
25-1473
Verdict cause
Patentability
Court
Fed. Cir.
Court level
Court of Appeals
Case region
District of Columbia
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
Appeal
Filed – Closed
21 Feb 2025 – 14 May 2026
Duration
447 days
Basis of termination
Unpatentable
Products & marks
Adaptive headlight system
Validity challenges
5 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 25-1473, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US11208029B2 Inactive App. US17/152399

Adaptive headlight system

A motor vehicle includes headlamps having a plurality of LED light sources, one or more processors, and a memory storing instructions. One or more processors executing the instructions are enabled to receive first data, including at least map data, indicating a road curvature upcoming along a road on which the motor vehicle is traveling. The processors are also enabled to determine a light change, the change adapting a light pattern of the headlamps in at least one of color, intensity or spatial distribution to increase light in a direction of the road curvature ahead of the motor vehicle and shaping light based at least in part on the road curvature. The processors are further enabled to control at least a first plurality of the LED light sources to provide light based at least in part on the determined light change and prior to the motor vehicle reaching the road curvature.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
28 Dec 2021
Earliest priority
12 Jul 2002
Est. expiry
14 Jul 2023
Validity challenges
5 on recordIPR2023-01034 · Patentability · filed by Mercedes-BenzIPR2023-01122 · Patentability · filed by PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC.IPR2022-01586 · Patentability · filed by PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INCIPR2023-01126 · Patentability · filed by Mercedes-Benz USA, LLCIPR2022-01500 · Patentability · filed by Unified Patents, LLC
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
B60Q1/04F21K9/23F21K9/232B60Q1/08B60Q1/14F21V19/02F21V23/04F21S4/28F21S41/143F21S41/147F21S41/65H05B47/105H05B45/20H05B47/10H05B47/11F21S41/153H05B47/115H05B45/395H05B3/00F21V29/74F21Y115/10F21V21/02F21V21/30F21W111/023F21W111/027F21W111/08F21W131/103F21W131/40F21Y113/00F21W102/00
Prosecution counsel
Brooks Kushman P.C.
Examiner
LE, TUNG X
US11208029B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US11208029B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”

Case 25-1473 · Fed. Cir. · closed 14 May 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 25-1473?

25-1473 is a patent patentability brought by Yechezkal Evan Spero against Mercedes-Benz, filed on 21 Feb 2025 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 14 May 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 25-1473?

US11208029B2 (“Adaptive headlight system”), assigned to SPERO, YECHEZKAL EVAN, currently inactive. The record also lists Adaptive headlight system.

How was case 25-1473 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED”

How long did case 25-1473 take?

447 calendar days, from filing on 21 Feb 2025 to closure on 14 May 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 25-1473?

Andrew B. Turner, Frank A. Angileri, Sangeeta G. Shah and Thomas A. Lewry are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Yechezkal Evan Spero. Celine Jimenez Crowson, Damon M. Lewis, Joseph James Raffetto and Nicholas Rotz appear for defendant Mercedes-Benz.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 25-1473 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 25-1473 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.