All Terminal Services v. Roboflow: Computer Vision Patent Suit Dismissed in 56 Days
All Terminal Services, LLC, operating as ConGlobal Technologies, brought a patent infringement action against AI vision platform Roboflow, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting two patents covering computer vision and yard management technology. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 56 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 56 days
56 days — well below the median time-to-termination for patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 notice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. This is a procedural right — no judicial approval is required. The dismissal notice here was filed before Roboflow had answered, making this a clean, unilateral exit available to the plaintiff as of right.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice — but what does that mean here?
The notice explicitly states dismissal ‘without prejudice,’ meaning All Terminal Services retains the right to refile the same claims against Roboflow in a future action. A dismissal with prejudice would bar refiling permanently. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement or licensing agreement was reached alongside this filing — the terms, if any, remain private. Practitioners should note this distinction when assessing litigation risk.
Refiling remains possibleRoboflow exits without merits adjudication — for now
Roboflow, Inc. obtained dismissal without any finding of infringement or validity — and without paying costs. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, the patent threat over Roboflow Inference, the Workflows System, and the Yard Management System is not formally extinguished. Roboflow faces residual exposure under both US12217183B2 and US12020148B1 unless licensing or design-around steps are taken.
No merits ruling — risk persistsAI vision and logistics IP: a sector on notice
This case signals that computer vision platforms serving industrial logistics — particularly yard and terminal management — are increasingly in the crosshairs of assertion activity. ConGlobal Technologies’ patent portfolio covers technology directly applicable to AI-powered object detection and workflow orchestration systems. Competitors and customers of similar platforms should treat this filing as a sector-level signal, even absent a merits ruling.
Sector-level IP risk signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | All Terminal Services, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Roboflow, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Kinder Beverina | Attorney | Counsel for All Terminal Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | April Michelle Meeks | Attorney | Counsel for All Terminal Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac J. Colunga | Attorney | Counsel for All Terminal Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew D. Zapadka | Attorney | Counsel for All Terminal Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Arnall Golden Gregory, LLP | Law Firm | Representing All Terminal Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP | Law Firm | Representing All Terminal Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amanda Eileen Lack | Attorney | Counsel for Roboflow, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Raghav Krishnapriyan | Attorney | Counsel for Roboflow, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy J. Carroll | Attorney | Counsel for Roboflow, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP | Law Firm | Representing Roboflow, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Franklin U. Valderrama | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a unilateral, no-court-order-required mechanism available only before the defendant answers. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ language preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile identical claims. The agreed cost-bearing provision (each side its own fees) is a negotiated term not required by the rule, suggesting some level of coordination between parties. No merits determination was reached on infringement or validity of either asserted patent.
US12217183B2 & US12020148B1 — AI Computer Vision for Logistics and Yard Management
US12217183B2 (application US18/731207) and US12020148B1 (application US16/951015) together cover AI-driven computer vision and machine learning inference systems applied to logistics and yard management environments. The earlier application number (US16/951015) suggests a filing circa 2020, with the continuation (US18/731207) extending claim coverage into more recent platform architectures. Both patents are relevant to real-time object detection, workflow orchestration, and automated terminal operations — core capabilities of modern AI logistics platforms.
These patents sit at the intersection of two high-growth sectors: AI inference-as-a-service and industrial logistics automation. As platforms like Roboflow Inference expand from developer tooling into enterprise and industrial deployment, they increasingly overlap with IP held by domain-specific operators like ConGlobal Technologies. The dual-patent assertion — spanning both system architecture and workflow methodology — suggests a deliberate enforcement posture designed to cover multiple layers of competing products.
Should you run an FTO against US12217183B2 and US12020148B1?
Any company building or deploying AI computer vision platforms for logistics, terminal operations, or yard management — or offering inference APIs used in those environments — should treat these two patents as priority FTO targets. The products named in this litigation (Roboflow Inference, Workflows System, Yard Management System) signal that claim scope may reach platform-level inference orchestration, not just end-user applications. R&D and product teams expanding into industrial or port automation are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim landscape of US12217183B2 and US12020148B1 against your product architecture in hours, not weeks. Eureka identifies overlapping claim elements, surfaces related continuation filings in the ConGlobal/All Terminal Services patent family, and flags design-around opportunities — giving IP and engineering teams the evidence base needed before product launch or market expansion.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12217183B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar AI Computer Vision Patent Cases in N.D. Illinois and Federal Courts
Explore patent infringement cases involving AI computer vision, machine learning inference, and logistics automation platforms filed in the Northern District of Illinois and comparable federal courts.
What this case signals for the AI vision and logistics IP landscape
A 56-day lifecycle and voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves strategic questions open for both parties and the broader sector.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve plaintiff optionality — monitor for refiling
All Terminal Services retains full rights to refile against Roboflow or any other computer vision platform that allegedly practices US12217183B2 or US12020148B1. Companies in the AI-powered logistics and yard management space should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a resolution, and monitor ConGlobal Technologies’ litigation activity.
Early dismissal before answer suggests negotiation, not weakness
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals filed within 56 days — before the defendant even answers — typically suggest the parties reached a private accommodation or the plaintiff is repositioning strategy. The cost-bearing clause (each party its own fees) is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral retreat.
All v Roboflow — key questions answered
All Terminal Services, LLC d/b/a ConGlobal Technologies filed a patent infringement suit against Roboflow, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois on February 21, 2025, asserting US12217183B2 and US12020148B1. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on April 18, 2025 — 56 days after filing — with each party bearing its own costs. No merits determination was reached.
All Terminal Services asserted two patents: US12217183B2 (application US18/731207) and US12020148B1 (application US16/951015). Both cover AI computer vision and machine learning systems applied to logistics and yard management operations, and were asserted against Roboflow’s Inference platform, Workflows System, and Yard Management System.
A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is filed unilaterally by the plaintiff before the defendant answers, requires no court order, and — when entered without prejudice — does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the same claims. All Terminal Services retains full rights to bring new infringement claims against Roboflow or others under the same patents. No statute of limitations has been triggered by this dismissal alone.
At 56 days from filing to dismissal, the case resolved faster than the typical patent litigation lifecycle in N.D. Illinois. Early Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals — before the defendant answers — commonly suggest a private negotiated resolution, licensing discussion, or strategic repositioning by the plaintiff. The agreed cost-bearing term (each party its own fees) is consistent with a negotiated exit, though the public record does not confirm any settlement terms.
Yes. The without-prejudice dismissal means both patents remain active and enforceable. Companies building AI inference platforms, computer vision APIs, or yard and terminal management systems that overlap with the claim scope of these patents face residual exposure. The continuation relationship between the two application numbers also suggests potential for further claim refinements. A formal FTO analysis is advisable for any platform operating in AI-powered logistics automation.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.