AI-Core Technologies v. Keyence Corp.: 7-Patent Vision System Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
AI-Core Technologies, LLC asserted seven patents covering machine vision, barcode reading, and AutoID network software against Keyence Corporation of America in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties reached a resolution within 181 days, with AI-Core’s claims dismissed with prejudice and Keyence’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice — each side bearing its own costs.
A Seven-Patent Machine Vision Assertion Resolved Before Claim Construction
On June 11, 2024, AI-Core Technologies, LLC filed suit against Keyence Corporation of America in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00438), asserting infringement of seven patents spanning machine vision image processing, 1D/2D barcode reading, autofocus reader technology, and AutoID network navigation software. The accused products included Keyence’s CV-X400 Series Vision System, SR-1000 Series Autofocus Reader, and AutoID Network Navigator Software — core offerings in Keyence’s industrial automation portfolio.
The case closed on December 9, 2024, after just 181 days, through a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted the stipulation and dismissed all of AI-Core’s claims with prejudice — meaning they cannot be re-filed — while dismissing Keyence’s counterclaims and defenses without prejudice, leaving Keyence’s legal positions available for future proceedings if needed. Each party was ordered to bear its own litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.
Resolution in under six months, before any substantive court rulings on claim construction or validity, is consistent with a negotiated settlement or licensing arrangement, though the public record does not confirm the specific commercial terms. The asymmetric dismissal structure — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without — is a common hallmark of a settlement in which the patent holder agrees to close the door on further assertion while the accused infringer preserves optionality. The financial terms, if any, remain confidential.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 181 days
181 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for multi-patent infringement actions
Dismissed with prejudice: what the asymmetric stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice bars re-filing
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation allows parties to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order. Where — as here — the stipulation specifies dismissal with prejudice for the plaintiff’s claims, those claims are extinguished permanently. AI-Core cannot reassert these seven patents against Keyence on the same accused products in any future action.
Plaintiff claims extinguishedAI-Core surrenders future assertion rights against Keyence
Dismissal with prejudice of AI-Core’s claims represents a binding relinquishment of its right to sue Keyence on these seven patents for the accused products. This outcome is consistent with a settlement in which the patent holder receives consideration in exchange for a covenant not to sue. However, AI-Core retains the patents and may assert them against other parties in the market.
Future assertion barred vs. KeyenceKeyence preserves counterclaim rights while closing the infringement threat
Keyence’s counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Keyence retains the ability to revive invalidity or other challenges to AI-Core’s patents if circumstances require — for example, if AI-Core asserts the same patents against Keyence affiliates or in a related context. Keyence also avoids any fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Counterclaims preservedSeven machine vision patents remain live and assertable in the broader market
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves Keyence’s exposure but leaves AI-Core’s seven-patent portfolio intact and enforceable against other competitors in the machine vision, barcode reader, and industrial AutoID software space. Companies offering products technically similar to Keyence’s CV-X400 or SR-1000 lines should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
Portfolio remains active vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AI-Core Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US7746516B2 and 6 machine vision/barcode patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Keyence Corp. | Company | Keyence Corp. of America — industrial automation, machine vision, and barcode reader manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carey Matthew Rozier | Attorney | Counsel for AI-Core Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Francis McDonough , III | Attorney | Counsel for AI-Core Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Lloyd Hardt | Attorney | Counsel for AI-Core Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Travis E. Lynch | Attorney | Counsel for AI-Core Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing AI-Core Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bradford A. Cangro | Attorney | Counsel for Keyence Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ghee Jung Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Keyence Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jacob Andrew Snodgrass | Attorney | Counsel for Keyence Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Roger D. Taylor | Attorney | Counsel for Keyence Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | PV Law LLP | Law Firm | Representing Keyence Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s acceptance of the joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) reflects a purely consensual, party-driven resolution — the court made no findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The asymmetric prejudice terms are legally significant: AI-Core’s with-prejudice dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes against Keyence on these patents and accused products, while Keyence’s without-prejudice counterclaims preserve its invalidity arguments for any future context. No fee award was made, consistent with neither party being found to have litigated in bad faith.
US7746516B2 and six further patents — machine vision, barcode reading, and AutoID software
The seven patents asserted by AI-Core Technologies span foundational technologies in industrial machine vision and automatic identification: image capture and processing (US7746516B2, US8610742B2, US8130241B2), 1D and 2D barcode and code reading with autofocus (US7623036B2, US7215834B1, US7365298B2), and AutoID network navigation software architecture (US9338217B2). Application dates range from the early-to-mid 2000s, placing the underlying inventions in the era when machine-readable code systems were transitioning from linear to area-imaging architectures.
This portfolio targets the full product stack of an industrial AutoID deployment — from the optics and image sensor through the decoding algorithm to the network management layer. Keyence’s accused products sit precisely in this stack: the CV-X400 vision system handles image-based inspection, the SR-1000 handles autofocus code reading, and the AutoID Network Navigator manages device connectivity. Other competitors offering functionally equivalent products in smart factory, logistics, and quality-control automation should regard this portfolio as an active enforcement risk regardless of the Keyence resolution.
Should you run an FTO analysis against AI-Core’s machine vision patent portfolio?
Any organisation developing or commercialising machine vision systems, 1D/2D barcode readers, autofocus code scanners, or AutoID network management software in the United States should treat AI-Core’s seven-patent portfolio as a priority FTO target. The with-prejudice dismissal against Keyence confirms the portfolio has enforcement credibility — and the absence of any claim construction ruling means claim scope remains untested and potentially broad.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the seven AI-Core patents against your product’s technical architecture, identify claim limitations relevant to your image processing pipeline or network software, and flag prior art that could support an IPR petition if needed. Eureka’s prosecution history analysis can surface any file wrapper estoppel that may narrow claim scope — intelligence that is particularly valuable given no court has yet construed these claims.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7746516B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar machine vision and barcode reader patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving machine vision, industrial barcode reading, and AutoID software patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas follow distinct assertion and resolution patterns.
What this case signals for the machine vision and industrial AutoID IP landscape
A seven-patent assertion resolved in under six months in E.D. Texas suggests this portfolio carries credible licensing leverage — and the market should take note.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for multi-patent technology assertions
AI-Core’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas for a seven-patent assertion against a major industrial automation company is consistent with the venue’s plaintiff-friendly reputation and efficient docket management. Companies with significant U.S. machine vision product lines should maintain E.D. Texas litigation readiness.
Asymmetric dismissal language signals negotiated resolution, not abandonment
The structure — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice — is a standard settlement signature. It suggests AI-Core extracted value from Keyence, while Keyence preserved optionality. Competitors facing assertion from AI-Core should expect a similar playbook and prepare early invalidity analysis.
AI-Core v Keyence — key questions answered
AI-Core asserted seven patents: US7746516B2, US7623036B2, US9338217B2, US8610742B2, US7215834B1, US7365298B2, and US8130241B2. These cover machine vision image processing, 1D and 2D barcode reading with autofocus, AutoID network navigation software, and related industrial automation technologies.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently extinguishes AI-Core’s right to re-file the same infringement claims against Keyence regarding these seven patents and the accused products. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, meaning AI-Core cannot reassert these patents against Keyence on the same accused product lines in any future litigation.
Keyence’s counterclaims — which likely included invalidity and non-infringement defences — were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Keyence retains the ability to revive those arguments in a future proceeding if circumstances require. This asymmetric structure is common in settlements: the patent holder forecloses re-assertion while the accused party preserves its invalidity optionality.
The accused Keyence products included the AutoID Network Navigator Software, the CV-X400 Series Intuitive Vision System, and the SR-1000 Series Autofocus 1D and 2D Code Reader with AutoID Network Navigator. These products span Keyence’s machine vision inspection and industrial barcode scanning portfolio.
No damages award was issued and no fee-shifting was ordered. The stipulation of dismissal expressly provides that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This is consistent with a negotiated resolution and means neither party was found to have litigated in bad faith under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.