Hanshow v. SES-Imagotag: Federal Circuit Dismissal Ends Patent Appeal

Updated on Nov. 28, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

In a swift resolution at the appellate level, Hanshow America, Inc. v. Ses-Imagotag, GmbH (Case No. 25-1805) concluded with a voluntary dismissal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 3, 2025. The parties agreed to terminate proceedings related to US7986335B2, a patent covering set top box videoconferencing system technology, with each side bearing their own costs. This 12-day appeal represents one of the shortest Federal Circuit patent matters in recent memory, offering important lessons for IP professionals navigating patent validity challenges in 2025.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

Hanshow America, Inc. operates in the retail technology sector, known for electronic shelf label (ESL) solutions and digital retail infrastructure. Ses-Imagotag, GmbH, with operations in Austria, is part of VusionGroup (formerly SES-imagotag), a global leader in electronic shelf labeling and retail IoT solutions. Both companies have developed patent portfolios as the retail technology sector expands. Explore similar cases on Patsnap Eureka IP.

The Patent at Issue

US7986335B2 relates to set top box videoconferencing system technology. According to USPTO records, the patent is currently assigned to Lifesize, Inc. and describes methods for integrating videoconferencing capabilities with consumer electronics such as cable boxes, satellite boxes, or gaming consoles.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Hanshow retained Arch & Lake LLP, with attorney Hao Tan leading the appeal. Defendant Ses-Imagotag was represented by Perkins Coie LLP, with Grant Edward Kinsel and Tara Lauren Kurtis handling the defense.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

The Federal Circuit appeal followed an underlying invalidity/cancellation action challenging the patentability of US7986335B2. The appeal was filed on May 22, 2025, in the District of Columbia jurisdiction, directed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—the exclusive appellate court for patent matters in the United States.

Within just 12 days, the parties reached an agreement to dismiss. This brief appellate timeline suggests settlement negotiations were either ongoing or accelerated once the appeal was docketed.

💡 Key Insight: A 12-day Federal Circuit appeal resolution indicates pre-existing settlement discussions or a strategic decision that continued appellate litigation costs outweighed potential benefits for both parties.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The Federal Circuit’s order states: “The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). (2) Each side shall bear their own costs.”

This voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) requires agreement from all parties, distinguishing it from unilateral withdrawals. The cost allocation—each party bearing their own—is standard for negotiated dismissals. Track litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The underlying dispute centered on patentability through an invalidity or cancellation action. Such proceedings typically challenge patents based on prior art, obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or inadequate disclosure. The specific invalidity grounds asserted were not disclosed in the available case data.

Legal Significance

⚖️ For Patent Validity Doctrine: The dismissal leaves US7986335B2’s validity status unresolved at the appellate level. The patent remains enforceable absent a final invalidity ruling.

⚖️ For Federal Circuit Practice: Voluntary dismissals at the appellate stage avoid precedent-setting decisions while allowing parties to reach commercial resolutions.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Holders:

• Voluntary dismissals preserve patent rights but may signal litigation risk assessment
• Consider freedom to operate (FTO) agreements in post-settlement negotiations
• Evaluate whether underlying validity challenges affect licensing leverage

For Accused Infringers:

• Early settlement at the appellate stage can avoid adverse precedent
• Cost-bearing provisions should be negotiated alongside commercial terms

🔬 For R&D Teams:

• Conduct FTO analysis for technologies in the videoconferencing integration space
• Monitor continuation patents and related family members. Analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP

Industry & Competitive Implications

The Hanshow-Ses-Imagotag dispute involves two companies operating in the electronic shelf label and retail technology markets. Patent portfolios in this sector increasingly serve as competitive assets.

📊 Market Context: The global ESL market continues to grow, driving patent activity among major players. Companies operating in this space must balance innovation investment with IP risk management.

The voluntary dismissal concludes the litigation without disclosed terms. For competitors and new market entrants, this case underscores the importance of patent landscape analysis before product launches.

💡 Key Insight: When competitors reach rapid appellate settlements, it often reflects a mutual assessment that litigation costs exceed the value of judicial resolution.

Key Takeaways

⚖️ For Patent Attorneys:

• Federal Rule 42(b) dismissals require mutual agreement—negotiate cost provisions carefully
• 12-day appeal resolutions suggest parallel commercial negotiations
• Invalidity challenges that settle leave patent status uncertain but enforceable
• Research patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP

🔬 For IP Professionals & R&D:

• US7986335B2 remains active for FTO purposes
• Monitor both parties’ subsequent patent filings for design-around indicators
• Build patent watching protocols for retail technology disputes

📊 Cases to Watch: Federal Circuit patent validity appeals in retail IoT, ESL technology, and videoconferencing systems through 2025.

Conclusion

The Hanshow America v. Ses-Imagotag dismissal represents a resolution to a patent validity dispute at the Federal Circuit. While the 12-day appeal provides limited precedential guidance, it offers strategic lessons about appellate settlement timing, cost allocation, and the commercial considerations underlying patent litigation decisions. IP professionals should monitor US7986335B2’s future enforcement activity and related patent developments in the retail technology sector.

Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP to explore related cases and analyze patent validity trends.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case data and should not be relied upon for legal decision-making. Patent litigation involves complex legal issues that require consultation with qualified patent counsel. Readers should consult licensed attorneys for case-specific guidance and verify all case information through official court records (PACER) and the USPTO.