Book a demo

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

Try now
Bataan Licensing v. Contemporary Control Systems | Patent Lawsuit 1:22-cv-06667

Bataan Licensing, LLC v. Contemporary Control Systems, Inc.

1:22-cv-06667 N.D. Ill. Closed US7423982B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 29 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and closed 14 Feb 2023, with US7423982B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7423982B2
Application no.
US10/237299
Case no.
1:22-cv-06667
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
N.D. Ill.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Illinois
Chief judge
Joan B. Gottschall
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
29 Nov 2022 – 14 Feb 2023
Duration
77 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Adaptive communication modes
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:22-cv-06667, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 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
US7423982B2 Inactive App. US10/237299

Adaptive communication modes

Systems and methods for implementing a communication mode for a communication terminal are provided. An embodiment of a method for implementing a communication mode includes receiving a message from a remotely located network control system and implementing one of a plurality of communication modes responsive to the message.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
9 Sep 2008
Est. expiry
17 Jul 2024
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04L12/66H04L12/28H04L29/06
Prosecution counsel
SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA, INC.
Examiner
PHAM, CHI H.
US7423982B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7423982B2 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

“Plaintiff Bataan Licensing LLC hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). According to Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Bataan Licensing LLC voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).”

Case 1:22-cv-06667 · N.D. Ill. · closed 14 February 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 1:22-cv-06667?

1:22-cv-06667 is a patent infringement action brought by Bataan Licensing, LLC against Contemporary Control Systems, Inc., filed on 29 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed on 14 February 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-06667?

US7423982B2 (“Adaptive communication modes”), assigned to CISCO TECHNOLOGY, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Adaptive communication modes.

How was case 1:22-cv-06667 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Bataan Licensing LLC hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). According to Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Bataan Licensing LLC voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).”

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 1:22-cv-06667 take?

77 calendar days, from filing on 29 Nov 2022 to closure on 14 February 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-06667?

Chief Judge Joan B. Gottschall presided. David Randolph Bennett and Steven G. Kalberg are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Bataan Licensing.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:22-cv-06667 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-06667 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.