Book a demo

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

Try now
CHEP Technology Pty v. Ivisys Ab | Patent Lawsuit 1:25-cv-00516

CHEP Technology Pty Limited v. Ivisys Ab

1:25-cv-00516 D. Del. Closed 3 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 29 Apr 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 10 Apr 2026, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
1:25-cv-00516
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Chief judge
Maryellen Noreika
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
29 Apr 2025 – 10 Apr 2026
Duration
346 days
Basis of termination
Appeal Dismissed
Products & marks
PalletAI system
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:25-cv-00516, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. 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
US8881360B2 Inactive App. US13/102414

Software and methods for automated pallet inspection and repair

An automated pallet inspection and repair apparatus comprises an inspection station and a repair station. The inspection station comprises a laser that illuminates a pallet, a camera that collects the reflected light and a computer system. The computer system analyses the output of the camera and acquires the pallet’s geometry and topography. The design of the pallet is determined by the computer software. A decision to repair the pallet is made by comparing acquired pallet data against the design criteria. If the pallet needs repair, a recipe of repair steps is constructed by inspecting each of the pallet’s elements. The recipe is transmitted to the automated repair station.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
11 Nov 2014
Earliest priority
19 Dec 2003
Est. expiry
6 Mar 2026
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
B23P21/00B23P6/00G06F19/00G01B11/03B65D19/38B23P19/04B65D19/31B23Q17/00
Prosecution counsel
ADDG – MWT
Examiner
OMGBA, ESSAMA
US8881360B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8881360B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US8918976B2 Active App. US11/693144

Automated digital inspection and associated methods

An automated pallet inspection station includes a frame, a transport system carried by the frame for transporting a pallet to be inspected, and at least one pallet feature sensing head adjacent the transport system for inspecting the pallet. The at least one pallet feature sensing head includes a downward looking pallet feature sensing head positioned above the transport system for inspecting a top surface of the pallet, and an upward looking pallet feature sensing head positioned below the transport system for inspecting a bottom surface of the pallet.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
30 Dec 2014
Earliest priority
10 Dec 2002
Est. expiry
3 Oct 2027
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
B23P21/00G01M99/00B23Q17/00B23P19/04G06T7/00
Prosecution counsel
ADDG – MWT
Examiner
OMGBA, ESSAMA
US8918976B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8918976B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

1 more

The docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.

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

“Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an agreement by and between Plaintiffs CHEP Technology Pty Limited and CHEP USA (collectively, “CHEP”) and Defendants IVISYS AB, IVISYS Sweden AB, and IVISYS Inc. (collectively, “IVISYS,” and together with CHEP, the “the Parties”), and subject to the approval of the Court, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that the claims asserted in this action are dismissed with prejudice, and that each Party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Parties’ written agreement.”

Case 1:25-cv-00516 · D. Del. · closed 10 April 2026
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 1:25-cv-00516?

1:25-cv-00516 is a patent infringement action brought by CHEP Technology Pty Limited against Ivisys Ab, filed on 29 Apr 2025 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 10 April 2026.

Which patents were asserted in 1:25-cv-00516?

US8881360B2 (“Software and methods for automated pallet inspection and repair”), assigned to CHEP TECHNOLOGY PTY LIMITED, currently inactive; US8918976B2 (“Automated digital inspection and associated methods”), assigned to CHEP TECHNOLOGY PTY LIMITED, currently active; US7765668B2 (“Automated pallet inspection and repair”), assigned to CHEP TECHNOLOGY PTY LIMITED. The record also lists PalletAI system.

How was case 1:25-cv-00516 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an agreement by and between Plaintiffs CHEP Technology Pty Limited and CHEP USA (collectively, “CHEP”) and Defendants IVISYS AB, IVISYS Sweden AB, and IVISYS Inc. (collectively, “IVISYS,” and together with CHEP, the “the Parties”), and subject to the approval of the Court, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that the claims asserted in this action are dismissed with prejudice, and that each Party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the Parties’ written

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 1:25-cv-00516 take?

346 calendar days, from filing on 29 Apr 2025 to closure on 10 April 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-00516?

Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. Jeremy A. Tigan, Joseph W. Staley and Scott P. Amy are recorded as counsel for plaintiff CHEP Technology Pty. Kelly E. Farnan, Rachel Lauren Weiner Cohen and Sara M. Metzler appear for defendant Ivisys Ab.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:25-cv-00516 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-00516 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.