Yechezkal Evan Spero v. Volkswagen, AG et al.
Patentability filed 8 Oct 2024 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 record
- Patent involved
- US11208029B2
- Application no.
- US17/152399
- Case no.
- 25-1028
- 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
- 8 Oct 2024 – 14 May 2026
- Duration
- 583 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Adaptive headlight system
- Validity challenges
- 5 on record
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
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.
- 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
- Inventors
- SPERO, YECHEZKAL EVAN
- 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
Parties of record
Yechezkal Evan Spero
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew B. Turner · Frank A. Angileri · John M. Halan · Sangeeta G. Shah · Thomas A. Lewry
- Firm
- Brooks Kushman PC
Volkswagen, AG
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Daniel Yonan · Jason A. Fitzsimmons · Michael D. Specht Director · Richard Crudo · Ryan N. Kaiser · William Milliken
- Firm
- Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, PLLC
- Also named
- Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew B. Turner | Yechezkal Evan Spero | Plaintiff |
| Frank A. Angileri | Yechezkal Evan Spero | Plaintiff |
| John M. Halan | Yechezkal Evan Spero | Plaintiff |
| Sangeeta G. Shah | Yechezkal Evan Spero | Plaintiff |
| Thomas A. Lewry | Yechezkal Evan Spero | Plaintiff |
| Daniel Yonan | Volkswagen, AG | Defendant |
| Jason A. Fitzsimmons | Volkswagen, AG | Defendant |
| Michael D. Specht Director | Volkswagen, AG | Defendant |
| Richard Crudo | Volkswagen, AG | Defendant |
| Ryan N. Kaiser | Volkswagen, AG | Defendant |
| William Milliken | Volkswagen, AG | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: DISMISSED”
Case 25-1028 · Fed. Cir. · closed 14 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 25-1028?
25-1028 is a patent patentability brought by Yechezkal Evan Spero against Volkswagen, AG, filed on 8 Oct 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 14 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 25-1028?
US11208029B2 (“Adaptive headlight system”), assigned to SPERO, YECHEZKAL EVAN, currently inactive. The record also lists Adaptive headlight system.
How was case 25-1028 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: DISMISSED”
How long did case 25-1028 take?
583 calendar days, from filing on 8 Oct 2024 to closure on 14 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 25-1028?
Andrew B. Turner, Frank A. Angileri, John M. Halan, Sangeeta G. Shah and Thomas A. Lewry are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Yechezkal Evan Spero. Daniel Yonan, Jason A. Fitzsimmons, Michael D. Specht Director, Richard Crudo, Ryan N. Kaiser and William Milliken appear for defendant Volkswagen.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 25-1028 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.