Electronic Scripting Products v. Endeavor One — 6DoF Interface Patent Dismissed
Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. asserted US9229540B2 — a patent covering input derived from six degrees of freedom interfaces — against Endeavor One Inc in the Western District of Washington. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice after 670 days, leaving the door open for future action.
6DoF input patent action ends without prejudice in W.D. Washington
On 29 November 2023, Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. filed an infringement action against Endeavor One Inc in the Western District of Washington (Case No. 2:23-cv-01834), before Judge Jamal N. Whitehead. The claim centred on US9229540B2, which protects methods and systems for deriving user input from six-degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) interfaces — technology relevant to immersive computing, motion tracking, and spatial interaction devices.
On 29 September 2025, Electronic Scripting Products filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), terminating the action without prejudice against Endeavor One Inc. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal requires no court order and takes effect upon filing. Critically, ‘without prejudice’ means the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims against the same defendant, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
The 670-day duration before dismissal is notable: the case ran well past typical early-dismissal windows, suggesting substantive engagement — potentially including claim construction or settlement negotiations — before the plaintiff elected to withdraw. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licensing agreement, or financial consideration, and the absence of a costs ruling is consistent with a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice rather than a stipulated order.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 670 days
670 days from filing to voluntary dismissal — longer than the median patent case pre-trial window
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 notice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-executing dismissal, no court order needed
Under F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing. Because the notice specifies ‘without prejudice,’ no res judicata effect attaches and the underlying patent claims remain viable for future assertion.
No merits adjudicationPublic record is silent on whether a deal underlies the dismissal
A dismissal without prejudice preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile; a dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar the same claims. The notice here specifies ‘without prejudice,’ but the public docket discloses no settlement agreement, licence, or covenant not to sue. It is not possible to determine from the public record alone whether a confidential resolution was reached between the parties.
Refiling right preservedEndeavor One exits without a merits ruling — but risk is not extinguished
Endeavor One Inc obtains no invalidity finding, no non-infringement ruling, and no fee award from this dismissal. The without-prejudice designation means Electronic Scripting Products could reassert US9229540B2 against Endeavor One in a future action. Endeavor One should treat the 6DoF patent as an ongoing commercial risk until it is invalidated, licensed, or expires.
No immunity grantedUS9229540B2 remains enforceable against the broader 6DoF market
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not diminish the patent’s enforceability. Other companies commercialising 6DoF input technology — including spatial computing, XR controllers, and motion-capture hardware — should note that Electronic Scripting Products retains all rights under the patent. The 670-day litigation history suggests the patent has been actively monitored and enforced.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. | Company | Motion-input IP licensing company — holder of US9229540B2 (6DoF interface input)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Endeavor One Inc | Company | Endeavor One Inc — defendant in 6DoF interface patent infringement actionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John A. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Banie & Ishimoto, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jamal N Whitehead | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) explicitly and designates the termination ‘without prejudice.’ This is the most plaintiff-favourable form of voluntary exit: no adverse merits finding, no cost liability, and full preservation of future claims. The phrasing offers no indication of any agreed terms, and courts do not scrutinise Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notices before they take effect. Both parties should treat the underlying patent dispute as unresolved on the merits.
US9229540B2 — Deriving input from six degrees of freedom interfaces
US9229540B2 (application number US13/199239) protects methods and systems for deriving input from six-degrees-of-freedom (6DoF) interfaces — technology that captures translational and rotational motion across all three spatial axes simultaneously. 6DoF input is foundational to immersive and spatial computing: it underpins the interaction models used in XR headsets, motion controllers, stylus systems, and spatial data-entry devices. The patent’s granted status (B2 designation) confirms it has survived examination.
For the spatial computing and XR sectors, a granted 6DoF input patent held by a dedicated IP licensing entity represents a persistent enforcement risk. Electronic Scripting Products has demonstrated willingness to litigate, having sustained this action for 670 days. Competitors developing motion-tracked controllers, 6DoF styluses, hand-tracking peripherals, or spatial UI frameworks should map their implementations against the claims of US9229540B2 — particularly independent claims covering the derivation of positional and rotational user intent from sensor data.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9229540B2?
Any organisation shipping or developing products that process six-degrees-of-freedom input data — including XR controllers, spatial computing devices, motion-tracked styluses, haptic interfaces, or hand/body tracking systems — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US9229540B2. The patent is held by a licensing-focused entity that has actively litigated, and the without-prejudice dismissal in this case means it remains fully enforceable against any market participant.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent lets R&D and IP teams rapidly map product features against the claim language of US9229540B2, surface the relevant prosecution history, and identify any granted or pending continuation patents in the same family. Running a structured FTO before product launch or a funding round is materially lower cost than defending an infringement action in the Western District of Washington.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9229540B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 6DoF and spatial input patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore patent infringement actions involving six degrees of freedom and spatial input technology litigated in U.S. district courts, including W.D. Washington.
What this case signals for the 6DoF and spatial input IP landscape
A without-prejudice exit after 670 days rarely signals abandonment — it more typically reflects a resolved or evolving commercial dynamic.
Without-prejudice dismissals after lengthy litigation warrant close monitoring
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses after nearly two years without a court ruling, it often suggests a private resolution or a strategic repositioning rather than a concession on the merits. Companies in the 6DoF and spatial computing space should continue to monitor Electronic Scripting Products’ enforcement activity around US9229540B2.
6DoF input patents carry elevated risk for XR and spatial computing products
US9229540B2 covers foundational methods for deriving input from six-degrees-of-freedom interfaces — a claim scope directly relevant to XR controllers, hand-tracking systems, and spatial interaction devices. Any product team developing or shipping such hardware should prioritise an FTO analysis against this patent family before commercialisation.
Electronic v Endeavor — key questions answered
It means the plaintiff filed a notice under F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) ending the case without any court ruling on the merits. ‘Without prejudice’ specifically preserves Electronic Scripting Products’ right to refile the same patent claims against Endeavor One in a future action. No invalidity or non-infringement finding was made.
US9229540B2 covers methods for deriving user input from six-degrees-of-freedom interfaces — systems that track position and rotation across all three spatial axes simultaneously. This claim scope is directly relevant to XR controllers, spatial computing hardware, motion-tracked styluses, and hand-tracking peripherals. Companies in these product categories carry inherent infringement risk from this patent.
Yes. A without-prejudice dismissal imposes no bar on refiling. Electronic Scripting Products may reassert US9229540B2 against Endeavor One in a new action, provided the applicable statute of limitations has not expired. The public record discloses no covenant not to sue or licence that would prevent refiling.
The plaintiff is Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., represented by attorney John A. Lee of Banie & Ishimoto, LLP. The defendant is Endeavor One Inc. No defendant agents or law firm were listed on the public docket. The case was assigned to Judge Jamal N. Whitehead in the Western District of Washington.
670 days significantly exceeds typical early-dismissal timelines, suggesting the parties engaged substantively — potentially through claim construction briefing or settlement negotiations — before the plaintiff elected to withdraw. This duration is consistent with either a privately resolved dispute or a strategic withdrawal pending a re-engagement on more favourable terms. The public record does not confirm either scenario.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.