Yechezkal Evan Spero v. Volkswagen, AG et al.
Patentability filed 5 Nov 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 14 May 2026, with US10894503B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10894503B2
- Application no.
- US15/961861
- Case no.
- 25-1146
- 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
- 5 Nov 2024 – 14 May 2026
- Duration
- 555 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Detector controlled headlight system
- Validity challenges
- 8 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
Detector controlled headlight system
An automated headlight system for vehicles replaces the high and low beam with a continuum of beam patterns, with further variable spatial distribution of intensities and color spectrum. The digital-headlight is comprised of a controller, sensors and multiple, individually-controllable light-sources modified by optical-control elements to form narrow-beams which are then combined to create the overall headlamp beam. Utilizing real-time sensor data regarding beings, objects and vehicles in the way-ahead, as well as optional information on the driver, vehicle and environment, the logical controller dynamically adapts the headlight system’s illumination so as to provide vehicle operators with optimal visibility while preventing discomfort-glare from reaching the eyes oncoming traffic or pedestrians.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 19 Jan 2021
- Earliest priority
- 12 Jul 2002
- Est. expiry
- 14 Jul 2023
- Validity challenges
- 8 on recordIPR2023-01321 · Patentability · filed by PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INCIPR2023-01026 · Patentability · filed by Mercedes-BenzIPR2023-01231 · Patentability · filed by PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INCIPR2023-01027 · Patentability · filed by Mercedes-BenzIPR2023-00197 · Patentability · filed by PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INCIPR2023-00328 · Patentability · filed by VolkswagenIPR2023-00335 · Patentability · filed by VolkswagenIPR2023-01320 · Patentability · filed by Porsche Cars North America, Inc.orporated
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SPERO, YECHEZKAL EVAN
- Classification
- B60Q1/14B60Q1/04F21K9/23F21K9/232B60Q1/08F21V19/02F21V23/04F21S4/28F21S41/143F21S41/147F21S41/65H05B47/105H05B45/20H05B45/395H05B47/10H05B47/11F21S41/153H05B3/00F21V29/74F21Y115/10F21V21/02F21V21/30F21W111/023F21W111/027F21W111/08F21W131/103F21W131/40F21Y113/00F21W102/00H05B44/00
- 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 · 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 · 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 |
| 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 |
| William Milliken | Volkswagen, AG | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: DISMISSED”
Case 25-1146 · 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 25-1146?
25-1146 is a patent patentability brought by Yechezkal Evan Spero against Volkswagen, AG, filed on 5 Nov 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 14 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 25-1146?
US10894503B2 (“Detector controlled headlight system”), assigned to SPERO, YECHEZKAL EVAN, currently inactive. The record also lists Detector controlled headlight system.
How was case 25-1146 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 25-1146 take?
555 calendar days, from filing on 5 Nov 2024 to closure on 14 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 25-1146?
Andrew B. Turner, Frank A. Angileri, 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 and William Milliken appear for defendant Volkswagen.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 25-1146 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.