Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
AR Design Innovations v. City Furniture | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-20127

AR Design Innovations, LLC v. City Furniture, Inc.

1:23-cv-20127 S.D. Fla. Closed US7277572B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 11 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and closed 13 Jun 2023, with US7277572B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case settled.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7277572B2
Application no.
US10/683825
Case no.
1:23-cv-20127
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
S.D. Fla.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Florida
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
11 Jan 2023 – 13 Jun 2023
Duration
153 days
Basis of termination
Case Settled
Products & marks
Three-dimensional interior design system
Validity challenges
3 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:23-cv-20127, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US7277572B2 Inactive App. US10/683825

Three-dimensional interior design system

A system and method in a client-server computing environment is provided for generating and rendering a photorealistic three-dimensional (3D) perspective view of a 3D object selectively positioned within a 3D scene. A client is configured for communicably accessing a server, and includes a client application configured for scene editing and rendering, using a graphical user interface (GUI). The 3D scene may be selectively displayed in a plurality of views, and a 3D object may be retrieved from the server and imported into the 3D scene to generate a composite. The 3D object may also be manipulated within the composite for placement and orientation. A 3D image of the composite may then be rendered at the client and selectively reconfigured in real time. Luminosity characteristics may be applied to the 3D image; followed by rendering a photorealistic 3D view of the composite image.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
2 Oct 2007
Est. expiry
30 Mar 2026
Validity challenges
3 on recordIPR2022-01169 · filed by Inter IKEA Systems B.V.IPR2021-00271 · Other · filed by Marxent Labs, LLCIPR2021-00085 · filed by Marxent Labs, LLC
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06K9/00G06T19/20G06FG06F3/00G06F17/50
Examiner
MARIAM, DANIEL
US7277572B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7277572B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Joint Notice of Settlement, ECF No. [44], filed on June 12, 2023, indicating that the parties have reached a settlement of the claims in this case. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The above-styled action is administratively CLOSED without prejudice to the parties to file appropriate dismissal documentation. 2. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case for administrative purposes only. 3. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all deadlines are TERMINATED.”

Case 1:23-cv-20127 · S.D. Fla. · closed 13 June 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:23-cv-20127?

1:23-cv-20127 is a patent infringement action brought by AR Design Innovations, LLC against City Furniture, Inc., filed on 11 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case closed on 13 June 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-20127?

US7277572B2 (“Three-dimensional interior design system”), assigned to AR DESIGN INNOVATIONS LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Three-dimensional interior design system.

How was case 1:23-cv-20127 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case settled. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Joint Notice of Settlement, ECF No. [44], filed on June 12, 2023, indicating that the parties have reached a settlement of the claims in this case. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The above-styled action is administratively CLOSED without prejudice to the parties to file appropriate dismissal documentation. 2. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case for administrative purposes only. 3. To the extent not otherwise disposed of, any scheduled hearings are CANCELED, all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT, and all deadlines are TERMIN

What does dismissal without prejudice mean?

A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.

How long did case 1:23-cv-20127 take?

153 calendar days, from filing on 11 Jan 2023 to closure on 13 June 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-20127?

C. Matthew Rozier, James F. McDonough III, Jonathan L. Hardt, Jonathan R. Miller, Marcos Daniel Jimenez and Travis E. Lynch are recorded as counsel for plaintiff AR Design Innovations. Adil A. Shaikh, Frank Anthony Florio, George S. LeMieux, Jonathan Kent Osborne, Neil J. McNabnay and Ricardo J. Bonilla appear for defendant City Furniture.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-20127 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-20127 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.