CDN Innovations, LLC v. Toyota Motor, Corp.
Infringement action filed 5 Feb 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 29 Apr 2026, with US6865532B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6865532B2
- Application no.
- US09/956307
- Case no.
- 2:26-cv-00097
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 5 Feb 2026 – 29 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 83 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Method for recognizing spoken identifiers having predefined grammars
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Method for recognizing spoken identifiers having predefined grammars
A method for selecting and recognizing spoken identifiers first defines a phrase having word slots. The word slots are arranged in the phrase in a predetermined order and according to a predetermined grammatical structure of a target language. A set of unique words selected from the target language is assigned to each word slot in the phrase according to the grammatical structure. Then, a unique identifiers can be generated by selecting one word from each set for each slot for each identifier such that a concatenating of the selected words in the predetermined order form the unique identifier.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 8 Mar 2005
- Est. expiry
- 13 May 2023
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ANDERSON, DAVID B.
- Classification
- G10L15/00G10L15/18
- Prosecution counsel
- BakerHostetler
- Examiner
- MCFADDEN, SUSAN
Parties of record
CDN Innovations, LLC
- Core tech
- G10L15/00G10L15/18
- Counsel
- Cortney Alexander
- Firm
- Kent & Risley LLC (Alpharett)
Toyota Motor, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Cortney Alexander | CDN Innovations, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff CDN Innovations, LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 15.) In the Motion, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned case against Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc. (“Defendants”) without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Defendants have not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims by Plaintiff against Defendants in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case between Plaintiff and Defendant not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above captioned case as no parties or claims remain.”
Case 2:26-cv-00097 · E.D. Tex. · closed 29 April 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:26-cv-00097?
2:26-cv-00097 is a patent infringement action brought by CDN Innovations, LLC against Toyota Motor, Corp., filed on 5 Feb 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 29 April 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:26-cv-00097?
US6865532B2 (“Method for recognizing spoken identifiers having predefined grammars”), assigned to CDN INNOVATIONS, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Method for recognizing spoken identifiers having predefined grammars.
How was case 2:26-cv-00097 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff CDN Innovations, LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 15.) In the Motion, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned case against Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc. (“Defendants”) without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Defendants have not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND A
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 2:26-cv-00097 take?
83 calendar days, from filing on 5 Feb 2026 to closure on 29 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:26-cv-00097?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Cortney Alexander is recorded as counsel for plaintiff CDN Innovations.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:26-cv-00097 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.