Infringement action filed 9 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 9 May 2023, with US7100866B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
In one embodiment of the present invention there is described a vehicle having a propeller mechanism for propelling the vehicle in a horizontal direction. The vehicle includes a transmitter positioned on the bottom of the vehicle for transmitting a signal from the vehicle downwardly away from the vehicle. A receiver is positioned on the bottom of the vehicle for receiving the signal as it is bounced off of a surface, defined as a bounced signal. A control system is also provided that automatically sets a speed of the propeller mechanism in response to the receiver. The control system sets the speed of the propeller mechanism to a first speed when the receiver receives the bounced signal and the control system sets the speed of the propeller mechanism to a second speed when the receiver does not receive the bounced signal. The first speed is predefined as a speed that causes the vehicle to gain altitude, while the second speed is predefined as a speed that causes the vehicle to lose altitude. When the vehicle reaches a predetermined distance away from the surface of the object, the vehicle will hover at the predetermined distance as the control system toggles between the first and second speeds.
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Flying Heliball, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “FH”) and Defendant Spin Copter, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Spin Copter”) via their respective undersigned counsel, that: 1. Plaintiff and Defendant have settled this litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of an executed Settlement Agreement. 2. As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant consents to the entry of a Stipulated Permanent Injunction in favor of FH and against Defendant in the form of the Proposed Stipulated Permanent Injunction and Dismissal attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (“Stipulated Injunction”). 3. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the terms of the Stipulated Injunction and the Settlement Agreement between the parties."
Case 2:23-cv-01778 · C.D. Cal. · closed 9 May 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
2:23-cv-01778 is a patent infringement action brought by Flying Heliball, LLC against Spin Copter, Inc., filed on 9 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 9 May 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-01778?
US7100866B2 (“Control system for a flying vehicle”), assigned to FLYING HELIBALL, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Control system for a flying vehicle.
How was case 2:23-cv-01778 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: "IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Flying Heliball, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “FH”) and Defendant Spin Copter, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Spin Copter”) via their respective undersigned counsel, that: 1. Plaintiff and Defendant have settled this litigation pursuant to the terms and conditions of an executed Settlement Agreement. 2. As part of the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant consents to the entry of a Stipulated Permanent Injunction in favor of FH and against Defendant in the form of the Proposed Stipulated Permanent Injunction and Dismissal attached hereto as Exhibit 1 (“Stipulated Injunction
What does consent judgment mean?
A consent judgment is a judgment the parties agree to and the court enters. Unlike a bare dismissal it is enforceable as a judgment.
How long did case 2:23-cv-01778 take?
61 calendar days, from filing on 9 Mar 2023 to closure on 9 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-01778?
Brian N. Platt, Christina Le Trinh, Collin D. Hansen and Sterling Arthur Brennan are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Flying Heliball. David Kerr appears for defendant Spin Copter.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:23-cv-01778 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-01778 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
