Fleet Connect Solutions v. Nikon: 7-Patent Wireless Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Fleet Connect Solutions, LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of New York asserting seven wireless communication patents against thirteen Nikon camera models, including the flagship Z9 and Z7 II. After 357 days, the parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own costs — a structure consistent with a private resolution.
Seven Wireless Patents, Thirteen Nikon Cameras, One Stipulated Exit
Filed on 19 February 2024 in the Eastern District of New York, Fleet Connect Solutions, LLC v. Nikon Corporation (Case No. 1:24-cv-01258) is a patent infringement action in which plaintiff Fleet Connect asserted seven United States patents — US7058040B2, US6633616B2, US8005053B2, US6549583B2, US7656845B2, US7742388B2, and US7260153B2 — against Nikon’s line of mirrorless and DSLR cameras, specifically the Z9, Z fc, Z7 II, Z6 II, Z 30, Z50, Z5, Z7, Z6, D6, D850, D7500, and D5600, collectively designated in the complaint as ‘Computing Devices.’
The case closed on 10 February 2025 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal is with prejudice, meaning Fleet Connect is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Nikon on these seven patents. Critically, the stipulation specifies that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees — a fee structure that diverges from what would be expected after a contested merits ruling and is broadly consistent with a privately negotiated resolution, though the public record does not confirm or disclose any settlement terms.
At 357 days, the case resolved faster than many multi-patent district court actions that proceed to claim construction or summary judgment. The relatively swift exit — before any substantive rulings entered the public record — suggests the parties may have reached commercial terms early in the litigation cycle. What remains unknown is whether any licensing arrangement, cross-licence, or other business agreement underpins the dismissal. The equal cost-bearing provision means neither side can be characterised as having formally prevailed on the merits, though the with-prejudice designation provides Nikon with permanent protection against re-assertion of these specific patents by Fleet Connect.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 357 days
357 days — slightly under the median time-to-resolution for multi-patent district court actions
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the written consent of all parties who have appeared. It carries no merits adjudication — no court finding of infringement or invalidity is recorded. The ‘with prejudice’ designation, however, operates as a final judgment on the claims: Fleet Connect cannot re-file these seven patent claims against Nikon in any future action. This is the standard mechanism parties use to close litigation after a private resolution.
Permanent bar on re-filingFleet Connect exits with prejudice — re-assertion permanently foreclosed
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Fleet Connect Solutions irrevocably relinquishes the right to assert these seven patents against Nikon’s named camera products in future litigation. Whether Fleet Connect extracted commercial value — such as a licensing fee — before stipulating is not disclosed in the public record. The own-costs provision means no fee award was sought or granted, which is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a plaintiff capitulation following adverse rulings.
No public licensing terms disclosedNikon secures permanent protection against these seven patents
For Nikon, the with-prejudice dismissal provides lasting certainty: Fleet Connect cannot revive these specific patent claims in any subsequent proceeding. Nikon’s Z-series mirrorless and D-series DSLR product lines are shielded from further assertion by this plaintiff on these patents. The equal cost-bearing clause means Nikon absorbed its own litigation expenses — typical where a defendant prefers a clean, certain exit over the cost and risk of continued proceedings.
Z9, Z7 II and 11 other models clearedPatent licensing risk remains for other camera and connected-device makers
Fleet Connect’s portfolio — seven patents covering wireless communication techniques — remains active and enforceable against third parties not party to this stipulation. Competing camera manufacturers, IoT device makers, or any company deploying similar wireless connectivity in consumer electronics should treat this case as a signal that this portfolio is being actively monetised. The absence of a public invalidity ruling means the patents carry no adjudicated weaknesses that competitors could rely upon.
Portfolio still live against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fleet Connect Solutions, LLC | Company | Wireless communication patent licensing entity — holder of US7058040B2 and 6 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nikon Corporation | Company | Nikon Corporation — global manufacturer of mirrorless and DSLR interchangeable-lens camerasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carey Matthew Rozier | Attorney | Counsel for Fleet Connect Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James F. McDonough , III | Attorney | Counsel for Fleet Connect Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Fleet Connect Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Grant Alan Shehigian | Attorney | Counsel for Nikon CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott D. Sherwin | Attorney | Counsel for Nikon CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dorf Nelson & Zauderer, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Nikon CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morgan Lewis & Bockisus | Law Firm | Representing Nikon CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | New York Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘dismissal of this action with prejudice’ combined with ‘each Party shall bear its own costs’ — is precise and deliberate. The with-prejudice designation carries res judicata effect on the asserted claims, permanently extinguishing Fleet Connect’s right to re-litigate these seven patents against Nikon. The mutual cost-bearing clause is notable: it is inconsistent with a scenario in which one party capitulated after adverse rulings, and is broadly consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution. No merits findings — on infringement, validity, or claim construction — were recorded by the court, meaning the patents carry no judicially determined scope limitations arising from this proceeding.
US7058040B2 and six related wireless communication patents asserted
The seven asserted patents — US7058040B2, US6633616B2, US8005053B2, US6549583B2, US7656845B2, US7742388B2, and US7260153B2 — cover a range of wireless communication techniques with application dates spanning approximately 2001 to 2010, a period coinciding with the commercialisation of Wi-Fi and early wireless data-transfer standards. Fleet Connect characterised Nikon’s Z-series mirrorless and D-series DSLR cameras as ‘Computing Devices,’ signalling an intent to read wireless claims broadly onto modern camera connectivity features including Wi-Fi image transfer, remote shooting control, and Bluetooth pairing.
Strategically, a portfolio of seven complementary wireless communication patents filed across nearly a decade represents a layered assertion strategy — if any single patent survives an invalidity challenge, infringement exposure may persist. For the imaging sector, the breadth of accused products (thirteen models spanning Nikon’s current and recent lineup) suggests that the asserted claims are not narrowly tied to any single wireless implementation. Any competitor deploying standard wireless connectivity in cameras, action cams, drones, or IoT imaging devices should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement risk until the patents expire or are adjudicated invalid.
Should your team run an FTO against Fleet Connect’s wireless patent portfolio?
If your organisation manufactures or integrates wireless connectivity — Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or proprietary RF — into cameras, drones, action cameras, industrial imaging devices, or any consumer electronics platform, Fleet Connect’s seven-patent portfolio warrants a formal freedom-to-operate review. The fact that Nikon’s thirteen-model lineup was targeted collectively as ‘Computing Devices’ indicates the plaintiff’s claims are drafted or interpreted broadly enough to encompass standard wireless features, not merely bespoke implementations.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP and R&D teams to map each of the seven asserted patents against your product’s wireless architecture, identify relevant prior art that could inform invalidity arguments, and benchmark claim scope against prosecution history. Given that no claim construction order or invalidity ruling emerged from this case, the patents’ enforceable scope remains untested in the public record — making a proactive FTO review the prudent step before product launch or market expansion.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7058040B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless patent infringement cases in E.D.N.Y. and connected-device courts
Explore comparable NPE-driven wireless communication patent assertions against consumer electronics OEMs litigated in the Eastern District of New York and related federal venues.
What this case signals for the wireless-enabled camera and connected-device IP landscape
A seven-patent wireless assertion against a tier-one camera OEM, resolved privately in under a year, carries clear signals for IP teams in consumer electronics.
Multi-patent wireless portfolios are being actively enforced against camera OEMs
Fleet Connect’s willingness to assert seven wireless communication patents simultaneously against Nikon’s full mirrorless and DSLR lineup indicates a systematic enforcement posture. Camera and connected-device manufacturers should audit their wireless feature sets — Wi-Fi sync, remote control, and transfer protocols — against this portfolio before product launch.
With-prejudice exits offer defendants certainty but leave portfolio risk intact
Nikon’s clean exit forecloses re-assertion by Fleet Connect, but the patents survive fully enforceable against the rest of the market. Competitors cannot free-ride on this dismissal. Any company with similar wireless connectivity in imaging or IoT products should independently assess freedom-to-operate against the seven asserted patents.
Fleet v Nikon — key questions answered
Fleet Connect asserted seven patents: US7058040B2, US6633616B2, US8005053B2, US6549583B2, US7656845B2, US7742388B2, and US7260153B2. All relate to wireless communication technologies. The complaint targeted thirteen Nikon camera models, including the Z9, Z7 II, Z6 II, Z fc, Z 30, Z50, Z5, Z7, Z6, D6, D850, D7500, and D5600.
The parties filed a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) agreeing to dismiss with prejudice. ‘With prejudice’ means Fleet Connect is permanently barred from re-asserting the same seven patent claims against Nikon. No merits ruling was issued — the court made no finding on infringement or patent validity. Each party bore its own costs, which is consistent with a negotiated private resolution.
No. The dismissal binds only the two parties — Fleet Connect Solutions and Nikon. The seven asserted patents remain fully enforceable against any third party. No invalidity or non-infringement finding was made, so competitors cannot rely on this outcome as a defence. Other camera and connected-device manufacturers should independently assess their exposure to this patent portfolio.
A mutual cost-bearing provision in a with-prejudice dismissal stipulation is broadly inconsistent with one party having suffered adverse rulings on the merits. It typically arises in negotiated exits where the parties have reached a private commercial arrangement. However, the public record does not disclose whether any licensing fee, royalty, or other consideration was exchanged — this remains unknown from publicly available filings.
The complaint accused thirteen Nikon camera models, collectively described as ‘Computing Devices’: the Z9, Z fc, Z7 II, Z6 II, Z 30, Z50, Z5, Z7, Z6, D6, D850, D7500, and D5600. This lineup spans Nikon’s current full-frame and APS-C mirrorless Z-series cameras as well as several DSLR models, suggesting the wireless claims were read broadly across product generations.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.