Bataan Licensing v. Contemporary Control Systems: Voluntarily Dismissed in 77 Days
Bataan Licensing, LLC asserted US7423982B2 — covering adaptive communication modes — against Contemporary Control Systems, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the infringement action with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) just 77 days after filing, before the defendant filed an answer or motion for summary judgment.
Licensing entity drops adaptive-comms patent suit in under three months
On 29 November 2022, Bataan Licensing, LLC filed suit against Contemporary Control Systems, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Joan B. Gottschall. The single patent asserted was US7423982B2, directed to adaptive communication modes. Contemporary Control Systems is a manufacturer of industrial networking and building-automation control equipment, making it a commercially plausible target for a patent covering adaptive communications technology.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that Bataan Licensing filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is with prejudice, meaning Bataan Licensing cannot re-assert the same claims against Contemporary Control Systems in a future action.
The case closed on 14 February 2023 — just 77 days after filing — suggesting the dispute was resolved or abandoned before formal litigation was substantially joined. No defendant law firm or defendant agents appear in the public record, which is consistent with early-stage resolution. The specific terms or circumstances behind the decision to dismiss are not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 77 days
77 days — well below the median district court patent case lifespan
US7423982B2 — Adaptive Communication Modes
Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating products that support adaptive or mode-switching communications in industrial control, building automation, or related networked environments should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US7423982B2. The patent remained fully intact after this case and its claims have not been construed or invalidated by any court. The defendant profile — a specialist in BACnet and industrial Ethernet controllers — signals that mid-market industrial networking vendors are within the assertion target zone.
Official order — verbatim text
The plaintiff's notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1) to achieve dismissal before the defendant was required to respond, bypassing judicial review of the merits entirely. The with-prejudice designation renders the dismissal equivalent to a final judgment for purposes of claim preclusion between these specific parties, though it leaves US7423982B2 and its claims fully intact and assertable against third parties.
Voluntary dismissal: what the Rule 41(a)(1) exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1): plaintiff's unilateral right to exit before answer
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without court approval by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Bataan Licensing exercised this right, meaning the court had no role in approving or conditioning the dismissal. The dismissal carries a 'with prejudice' designation, making it a final adjudication on the merits as between these two parties.
No court order requiredWith prejudice: Bataan Licensing cannot refile this claim against this defendant
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a final disposition that bars the plaintiff from bringing the same claims against the same defendant again. This forecloses any future infringement action by Bataan Licensing against Contemporary Control Systems on US7423982B2. This is distinct from a dismissal without prejudice, which would preserve the right to refile. The basis of termination records this as a voluntary dismissal; the specific reasons for choosing 'with prejudice' are not disclosed in the available record.
Claim barred as to this defendantContemporary Control Systems exits the litigation without a merits ruling
The defendant achieved closure without the burden of full litigation — no answer, no discovery, and no court judgment on the merits of the infringement or validity dispute. The with-prejudice dismissal means Contemporary Control Systems faces no further exposure to Bataan Licensing on this patent. No defendant counsel appears on the docket, suggesting engagement may have been minimal or handled informally prior to formal appearance.
No merits adjudicationUS7423982B2 remains untested — risk persists for other adaptive-comms players
Because the case ended without any court ruling on infringement or validity, US7423982B2 has not been judicially scrutinised. Other companies in the industrial networking and adaptive communications space remain potentially exposed to assertion of this patent. The rapid resolution — 77 days — and the absence of any public record of licensing terms means the outcome provides limited guidance to third parties assessing freedom-to-operate.
Patent validity untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bataan Licensing, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US7423982B2 (adaptive communication modes)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Contemporary Control Systems, Inc. | Company | Contemporary Control Systems, Inc. — industrial networking and building automation controls manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Randolph Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Bataan Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven G. Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for Bataan Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP law | Law Firm | Representing Bataan Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Joan B. Gottschall | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the adaptive communications and industrial networking space
This case spotlights US7423982B2 and Bataan Licensing's assertion activity — here are the forward-looking patent and R&D signals that matter for teams working in adaptive communications and industrial control networking.
Bataan Licensing's patent portfolio beyond US7423982B2
Licensing entities rarely assert a single patent in isolation. Mapping Bataan Licensing's full portfolio — including continuation and related applications stemming from US10/237299 — can reveal additional assertion vectors in the adaptive communications domain. Understanding the portfolio's breadth helps vendors assess whether licensing exposure extends beyond the claims of US7423982B2 alone.
Portfolio monitoringFiling trends in adaptive communication mode technologies
The adaptive communications space — encompassing mode-switching protocols, dynamic parameter negotiation, and multi-mode industrial networking — has seen sustained patent filing activity as IIoT and smart-building standards mature. Tracking filing trends around US7423982B2's core claims can reveal which players are actively staking territory in adjacent protocol-adaptation techniques and where the densest claim thickets exist.
Landscape analysisContemporary Control Systems' patent position in industrial networking
Contemporary Control Systems specialises in BACnet and industrial Ethernet controllers. Analysing their own patent filings — if any — and the defensive publication or standards-body contributions they make in the building-automation space helps competitors and partners understand their IP posture and whether they are building defensive depth against future assertion campaigns.
Defensive IP postureAdjacent R&D white space near adaptive mode-switching protocols
US7423982B2's focus on adaptive communication modes leaves potential white space in areas such as AI-driven protocol selection, edge-initiated mode negotiation, and cross-domain adaptive communications bridging legacy fieldbus with modern Ethernet standards. R&D teams can use claim-gap analysis around this patent's priority date to identify filing opportunities that are both technically adjacent and commercially differentiated from the asserted claims.
White space & filing opportunitySimilar adaptive communications patent cases in the Northern District of Illinois
Cases involving adaptive communication mode patents and early voluntary dismissals in the Northern District of Illinois reveal patterns in non-practising entity assertion strategy.
What this case signals for the adaptive communications IP landscape
A 77-day lifecycle and with-prejudice exit by the plaintiff are meaningful signals for anyone monitoring patent assertion in industrial networking.
With-prejudice dismissal bars re-assertion — but only against this defendant
Bataan Licensing's choice to dismiss with prejudice closes the door on Contemporary Control Systems specifically. Other industrial networking and building-automation vendors operating in the adaptive communications space remain exposed to assertion of US7423982B2. Companies in adjacent product categories should note that the patent's validity and claim scope were never tested in court.
Pre-answer resolution suggests early commercial resolution or weakened position
Cases that close within 77 days — before the defendant even files an answer — typically signal either a licensing agreement was reached, the plaintiff assessed its position as untenable, or a commercial resolution was reached on undisclosed terms. The public record is silent on which scenario applies here, but the speed and with-prejudice character are both notable data points for portfolio monitoring.
Bataan v Contemporary — key questions answered
Bataan Licensing, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Contemporary Control Systems, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois on 29 November 2022, asserting US7423982B2. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) on 14 February 2023, just 77 days after filing. The specific terms behind the dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) means Bataan Licensing cannot refile the same infringement claims against Contemporary Control Systems on US7423982B2 in the future. The dismissal is final as between these two parties, but the patent itself remains enforceable against third parties. No court ruled on infringement or validity.
US7423982B2, filed under application US10/237299, covers adaptive communication modes — technology enabling networked devices to dynamically adjust their communication parameters or protocols. It is relevant to industrial control networks, building automation, and related networked environments. No court has construed the claims or ruled on the patent's validity.
The case closed just 77 days after filing, before the defendant filed an answer or any substantive motion. The specific reasons are not disclosed in the available record. Early voluntary dismissals of this type can be consistent with various outcomes, but the public record does not confirm which scenario applies here.
No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice only bars Bataan Licensing from re-suing Contemporary Control Systems on the same claims. US7423982B2 remains valid and enforceable against other parties. Because no court construed the claims or ruled on validity, the patent's risk perimeter for third parties is unchanged by this case.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.