Electronic Scripting Products v. Fresh Consulting: AR Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. filed suit against Fresh Consulting Inc. in the Western District of Washington, asserting three patents covering augmented reality and motion-tracking technology against Fresh Consulting’s AR applications. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — just 115 days after filing.
AR Patent Infringement Action Ends in With-Prejudice Voluntary Dismissal
Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (ESP) filed this patent infringement action on July 23, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No. 2:24-cv-01082, before Hon. Michelle L. Peterson. The complaint alleged that Fresh Consulting Inc.’s augmented reality applications infringed three ESP patents: US9229540B2, US7826641B2, and US10191559B2 — a portfolio spanning AR input, motion-tracking, and gestural interface technologies.
On November 15, 2024, ESP filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ending the case 115 days after it was filed. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes: ESP permanently surrenders the right to re-assert these specific claims against Fresh Consulting based on the same accused products. No judgment was entered against either party, and no damages or injunctive relief were awarded.
A resolution within 115 days — before any court scheduling order or Markman hearing would typically be set — strongly suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution or that ESP elected not to pursue the matter further, possibly following an early assessment of the merits or an out-of-court agreement. The public record does not disclose whether any licence, payment, or commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal, leaving the underlying commercial rationale opaque.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 115 days
115 days — resolved well under the median district court patent case duration of ~2.5 years
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice: what the filing means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before answer or summary judgment
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Filing with prejudice converts that voluntary exit into a permanent bar — equivalent to a judgment on the merits for preclusion purposes. No judicial approval was required here, and the court issued no substantive ruling on the patents.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — with prejudiceESP permanently waives infringement claims against Fresh Consulting
By dismissing with prejudice, Electronic Scripting Products forfeits the right to re-sue Fresh Consulting on the same patents for the same accused AR products. This is an unusually strong concession from a plaintiff. It may reflect a negotiated licence, an arms-length settlement, or a strategic reassessment — but the public record does not confirm any consideration exchanged. ESP retains full enforcement rights against third parties.
Claim permanently extinguished vs. Fresh ConsultingFresh Consulting obtains permanent dismissal — but no invalidity ruling
Fresh Consulting secures a with-prejudice bar against re-litigation of these claims, which is a meaningful defence win. However, no court ruled the asserted patents invalid or not infringed — the three ESP patents remain in force. Fresh Consulting cannot claim the patents are weak based solely on this dismissal. If a licence was granted, the commercial terms are not public.
Protected from re-suit; patents still validThree live AR patents remain enforceable against the broader market
US9229540B2, US7826641B2, and US10191559B2 are unimpaired by this dismissal. Other companies developing or deploying augmented reality and gestural input technologies in the same space face the same patent risk that Fresh Consulting faced. The rapid resolution — before any claim construction — may embolden or caution other potential targets depending on whether a commercial deal was struck.
AR sector risk remains elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. | Company | AR and motion-tracking patent licensor — holder of US9229540B2, US7826641B2, and US10191559B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fresh Consulting Inc | Company | Fresh Consulting Inc. — technology consulting and software firm offering augmented reality applicationsSearch 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Syed M Abedi | Attorney | Counsel for Fresh Consulting IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Seed Intellectual Property Law Group PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Fresh Consulting IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Hon. Michelle L. Peterson | Judge | Washington Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming the filing was made before Fresh Consulting served an answer or summary judgment motion — a narrow procedural window. The explicit ‘with prejudice’ designation is the operative term: it elevates what would otherwise be a neutral procedural exit into a permanent merits bar. No substantive finding on infringement, validity, or claim construction was made, meaning the three asserted patents emerge from this litigation entirely unencumbered.
US9229540B2, US7826641B2 & US10191559B2 — augmented reality and motion-tracking systems
The three asserted patents — US9229540B2 (App. No. 13/199239), US7826641B2 (App. No. 12/584402), and US10191559B2 (App. No. 15/914797) — form a portfolio addressing augmented reality input and motion-tracking technologies. Filed across different application cycles, they collectively suggest a long-running R&D programme at Electronic Scripting Products focused on how users interact with AR environments through physical movement and gestural control — a foundational layer of modern AR systems.
For companies building AR applications, SDKs, or hardware interfaces, this portfolio represents a non-trivial risk cluster. The breadth of application numbers across multiple prosecution cycles suggests continuation or continuation-in-part relationships, which can extend claim coverage to newer product architectures. Any AR software firm — particularly those offering enterprise or consumer applications involving hand, body, or pointer tracking — should assess whether their implementations read on the independent claims of these three patents.
Should your AR product team run an FTO against US9229540B2, US7826641B2 & US10191559B2?
If your organisation develops augmented reality applications, motion-sensing interfaces, gestural input SDKs, or AR content platforms, this three-patent ESP portfolio warrants direct attention. The fact that ESP filed suit — and obtained a with-prejudice dismissal — against an AR consulting firm indicates active enforcement posture. Product teams shipping AR features that involve positional tracking, pointer input, or inertial sensing should not assume this case signals patent weakness.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical architecture against the independent and dependent claims of US9229540B2, US7826641B2, and US10191559B2, identifying overlap risk and prior art differentiators. Eureka surfaces family members, continuations, and related prosecution history — giving your IP counsel the full landscape before a demand letter arrives rather than after.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9229540B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar AR and motion-tracking patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving augmented reality, gestural input, and motion-tracking patents litigated in the Western District of Washington and comparable U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the augmented reality IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice exit by the plaintiff leaves three AR patents unscathed and the enforcement strategy unresolved.
With-prejudice dismissals at day 115 often signal a confidential resolution
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice this early — before any substantive court activity — it typically signals either a negotiated licence or a strategic withdrawal. Neither outcome weakens the underlying patents. AR technology developers should not treat this dismissal as evidence that ESP’s patents lack merit.
ESP’s three-patent AR portfolio remains fully enforceable against third parties
US9229540B2, US7826641B2, and US10191559B2 cover motion-tracking, gestural input, and AR systems — technologies central to consumer and enterprise AR development. With no invalidity finding in this case, companies building on similar technical architectures carry unresolved infringement exposure and should consider proactive FTO analysis.
Electronic v Fresh — key questions answered
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars Electronic Scripting Products from re-filing the same patent infringement claims — covering US9229540B2, US7826641B2, and US10191559B2 — against Fresh Consulting based on the same accused AR products. The three patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties.
ESP asserted three patents: US9229540B2 (App. No. 13/199239), US7826641B2 (App. No. 12/584402), and US10191559B2 (App. No. 15/914797). All three relate to augmented reality and motion-tracking input technologies and were asserted against Fresh Consulting’s augmented reality applications.
No. The case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff before the court issued any substantive ruling. There was no Markman hearing, no summary judgment motion, and no trial. The patents were not adjudicated valid, invalid, infringed, or not infringed. Their enforceability is entirely unaffected by this dismissal.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. The plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) after 115 days. While a with-prejudice dismissal this early is consistent with a negotiated resolution or licence agreement, no settlement terms, payments, or agreements have been disclosed publicly.
Companies developing augmented reality applications, gestural input systems, or motion-tracking interfaces should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US9229540B2, US7826641B2, and US10191559B2. ESP’s willingness to file and quickly resolve litigation suggests active enforcement. Early FTO analysis, prior art searches, and consideration of IPR petitions are prudent steps before receiving a demand letter.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.