ESP Inc. v. A2 Consulting: AR/VR Patent Case Dismissed After 147 Days

Case Overview

In a case that closed almost as quietly as it opened, Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (ESP) voluntarily dismissed its augmented and virtual reality patent infringement action against A2 Consulting, LLC — without prejudice — just 147 days after filing. Case No. 1:25-cv-00169, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and presided over by Chief Judge Matthew W. McFarland, involved three issued U.S. patents covering core AR/VR interaction technologies.

While no damages were awarded and no judicial ruling on the merits was reached, the case offers meaningful signals for patent practitioners, in-house IP counsel, and R&D teams operating in the augmented and virtual reality space. Voluntary dismissals of this nature — particularly those filed before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment — represent a distinct litigation pattern worth understanding. For anyone tracking **AR/VR patent infringement** trends or monitoring ESP’s enforcement posture, this case is a data point that demands careful analysis.

The Parties

Patents at Issue

This case involved three U.S. patents from ESP’s portfolio, covering AR/VR scripting and interaction input methodologies:

• • US9229540B2 — Covers AR/VR scripting and interaction input methodologies
• • US7826641B2 — An earlier-generation patent in the ESP portfolio addressing electronic scripting input
• • US10191559B2 — A continuation-family patent extending into more recent AR/VR interface claims

Litigation Timeline & Legal Analysis

Litigation Timeline

ESP filed its infringement action on March 17, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Chief Judge Matthew W. McFarland was assigned to the case. Critically, the case record confirms that A2 Consulting, LLC never served an answer or motion for summary judgment. This procedural posture is the cornerstone of the dismissal mechanism ESP employed. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet answered or moved for summary judgment — making the dismissal a unilateral decision requiring no judicial approval.

The case closed August 11, 2025, after 147 days — a duration consistent with pre-answer resolution patterns in patent enforcement actions.

Outcome

On August 11, 2025, ESP filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). All claims against A2 Consulting were dismissed, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was granted or sought at ruling stage.

The “without prejudice” designation is legally significant: ESP retains the right to reassert these same claims against A2 Consulting in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any strategic considerations.

Legal Significance

Because no claim construction, validity ruling, or infringement finding was issued, this case carries no direct precedential weight under patent doctrine. The patents — US9229540B2, US7826641B2, and US10191559B2 — remain valid, enforceable, and available for future assertion.

The continuation-based structure of ESP’s portfolio (with application numbers spanning three generations) signals a deliberate prosecution strategy to extend claim coverage as AR/VR technology evolved. Patent practitioners should note that continuation families of this type require ongoing FTO (freedom to operate) monitoring, as new claims may issue that cover products not implicated by earlier patent generations.