ESP Inc. v. Andromeda Entertainment: 6DOF Interface Patent Dismissed After 569 Days
Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. filed suit against Andromeda Entertainment Limited in the Western District of Texas asserting US9229540B2, a patent covering the derivation of input from six-degrees-of-freedom interfaces. The case ran for 569 days before the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving the merits unresolved.
6DOF Interface Patent Suit Ends Without Merits Ruling in W.D. Texas
Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. (ESP) filed this patent infringement action against Andromeda Entertainment Limited on September 6, 2023, in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00649). The suit asserted US9229540B2, a patent directed at systems and methods for deriving input from six-degrees-of-freedom (6DOF) interfaces — technology relevant to motion-based and immersive input devices. ESP was represented by Banie & Ishimoto LLP and The Mort Law Firm PLLC; Andromeda was represented by Spencer Fane LLP.
The case closed on March 28, 2025, when the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), available as of right before a defendant answers or moves for summary judgment. The dismissal was expressly without prejudice, meaning ESP retains the right to refile the same claims against Andromeda or other parties in future proceedings. Critically, the parties agreed — or at minimum did not contest — that each side would bear its own legal costs.
A 569-day duration before a pre-answer voluntary dismissal is notable; it suggests the parties may have engaged in substantive licensing discussions or that ESP was evaluating its litigation posture across a broader patent enforcement campaign. Because Andromeda never answered, the public record contains no invalidity contentions, claim construction positions, or damages figures. The ultimate driver of the dismissal — whether a licensing resolution, strategic withdrawal, or resource constraint — is not disclosed in the docket.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 569 days
569 days — longer than the typical W.D. Texas early dismissal, suggesting substantive pretrial activity
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 notice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court approval needed
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Andromeda had not yet answered, ESP could file the notice unilaterally. The court plays no gatekeeping role; the dismissal is self-executing upon filing. No merits adjudication occurred — the patent’s validity and Andromeda’s alleged infringement were never decided.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: refiling remains open, but the record is silent on any deal
The notice expressly states the dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE, preserving ESP’s right to assert the same patent against Andromeda — or any other party — in a future action. A dismissal with prejudice would have permanently extinguished those claims. The public docket does not confirm whether any licensing agreement, settlement payment, or covenant not to sue accompanied this filing; that distinction matters significantly for Andromeda’s ongoing risk exposure but cannot be determined from available court records.
Refiling not barredESP exits without a win — but retains full enforcement rights
ESP secured no court-validated relief: no damages award, no injunction, and no judicial finding of infringement. However, the without-prejudice dismissal preserves all options. If the case resolved through a private licensing arrangement, ESP may have achieved its commercial objective off-record. The each-party-bears-own-costs clause suggests the parties reached at least a procedural détente, consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a pure strategic withdrawal.
No merits win; rights intactAndromeda faces no judgment — but no formal clearance either
Andromeda Entertainment obtained a dismissal of all claims against it, removing immediate litigation risk. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice and no invalidity ruling was issued, US9229540B2 remains a live patent asset. Andromeda bears no awarded costs but cannot rely on this case as precedent establishing non-infringement or invalidity. Companies in the 6DOF and immersive interface space operating similar technology should note that this patent remains enforceable.
No invalidity ruling issuedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. | Company | Motion-interface IP licensor — holder of US9229540B2 covering 6DOF input derivationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Andromeda Entertainment Limited | Individual | Andromeda Entertainment Limited — entertainment technology company accused of 6DOF interface infringementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Ishimoto | Attorney | Counsel for Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Raymond W. Mort , III | 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 ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jennifer Ishimoto | Law Firm | Representing Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Mort Law Firm PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Electronic Scripting Products, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Darlene Ghavimi | Attorney | Counsel for Andromeda Entertainment LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stewart Mesher | Attorney | Counsel for Andromeda Entertainment LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Spencer Fane LLP | Law Firm | Representing Andromeda Entertainment LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice is filed by counsel citing ‘Mesa Digital, LLC’ as plaintiff — a discrepancy with the case caption naming Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. — which may suggest a related entity or filing error in the notice. The operative effect, however, is clear: the action is terminated without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), no merits determination was reached, and Andromeda faces no judicial finding on infringement or validity. The cost-bearing clause is the only substantive agreed term visible in the public record.
US9229540B2 — Deriving Input from Six Degrees of Freedom Interfaces
US9229540B2, filed under application number US13/199239, is directed at technology for interpreting and deriving meaningful input signals from six-degrees-of-freedom (6DOF) interface devices — systems capable of tracking motion across three translational axes (X, Y, Z) and three rotational axes (pitch, yaw, roll). This class of technology is foundational to immersive computing, including virtual reality controllers, motion-capture peripherals, and spatial input devices. The patent is held by Electronic Scripting Products, Inc., a company focused on motion-interface IP.
The strategic significance of US9229540B2 lies in the breadth of its application: 6DOF input derivation is relevant to consumer VR/AR hardware, professional simulation systems, gaming peripherals, and emerging spatial computing platforms. As the XR and immersive technology sector expands, patents covering fundamental input interpretation methods gain enforcement leverage. ESP’s willingness to litigate in W.D. Texas — a plaintiff-friendly venue — and the unresolved status of this case suggest the patent will continue to be asserted. Competitors and product developers operating in this space should assess exposure proactively.
Should your team run an FTO against US9229540B2?
Any R&D team or product organisation developing hardware or software that processes motion data from 6DOF input devices — including VR/AR controllers, motion-tracked peripherals, spatial computing interfaces, or robotics control systems — should evaluate freedom-to-operate against US9229540B2. The patent remains in force, its claims have not been judicially narrowed or invalidated, and the patent holder has demonstrated a readiness to enforce in federal court. A pre-launch FTO analysis is strongly advisable for any product in this category.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9229540B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may support design-arounds or validity challenges, and surface the full Electronic Scripting Products patent family to reveal related risk vectors. Eureka’s claim-level analysis accelerates what would otherwise be weeks of manual search, giving your legal and engineering teams a structured, defensible basis for go/no-go product decisions in the 6DOF interface space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9229540B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 6DOF Interface and Motion Input Patent Cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving six-degrees-of-freedom interface patents and motion input technology asserted in the Western District of Texas, including related immersive computing disputes.
What this case signals for the 6DOF and immersive interface IP landscape
A without-prejudice exit after 569 days leaves US9229540B2 fully live — and signals an active enforcement posture by ESP.
US9229540B2 remains fully enforceable — the threat has not been neutralised
No court has ruled on validity or infringement. The voluntary without-prejudice dismissal means ESP can reassert these claims at any time. Companies working on 6DOF interface input — including VR controllers, motion-capture systems, and spatial computing devices — should treat this patent as an active risk and conduct formal FTO analysis before launch.
Pre-answer dismissals of this duration often signal off-record licensing activity
A 569-day case closed before the defendant’s first answer is atypical for a purely strategic withdrawal. This timeline is consistent with extended licensing negotiations running in parallel with litigation. IP professionals monitoring ESP’s broader portfolio should assess whether a royalty-bearing licence was the actual commercial outcome — and what that implies for pricing in future enforcement actions.
Electronic v Andromeda — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on March 28, 2025, after 569 days. No merits determination was reached. Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The patent US9229540B2 remains enforceable.
A without-prejudice dismissal does not extinguish the underlying patent claims. Electronic Scripting Products retains the right to refile the same infringement action against Andromeda or any other party at a future date. No judicial finding of non-infringement or invalidity was issued, so Andromeda cannot rely on this case outcome as a legal shield against future assertions of US9229540B2.
US9229540B2 (application US13/199239) covers systems and methods for deriving input from six-degrees-of-freedom interfaces — devices that track motion across three translational and three rotational axes. Products potentially at risk include VR/AR controllers, motion-capture peripherals, spatial computing input devices, gaming motion controllers, and robotics control interfaces that process 6DOF sensor data.
The Western District of Texas has been a favoured venue for patent plaintiffs due to historically fast scheduling orders and plaintiff-friendly procedural norms, particularly in Waco. Filing there typically signals a litigation-ready enforcement strategy. Despite the eventual voluntary dismissal, the venue choice is consistent with a patent holder using litigation as leverage in licensing negotiations.
The dismissal notice filed in this case references ‘Mesa Digital, LLC’ as the plaintiff, which differs from the case caption identifying Electronic Scripting Products, Inc. This discrepancy may reflect a related entity relationship, an assignment of the patent, or a filing error in the notice. The operative legal effect — voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — is not disputed, but practitioners should investigate whether a patent assignment occurred that may affect future enforcement standing.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.