Geoscope Technologies Pte., Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.
Infringement action filed 1 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and closed 18 Sep 2023, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for defendant.
Case record
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-01373
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Va.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Virgin Islands of the United States
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 1 Dec 2022 – 18 Sep 2023
- Duration
- 291 days
- Basis of termination
- Judgment on the merits for Defendant
- Products & marks
- Method and apparatus for determining path loss by active signal detection · Method to modify calibration data used to locate a mobile unit · System and method for generating a location estimate using uniform and non-uniform grid points · System and method to collect and modify calibration data
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Method to modify calibration data used to locate a mobile unit
A method of modifying calibration data used to geo-locate a mobile station located in an indoor environment is disclosed. When a mobile station is located indoors, the signal strength of signals received and/or transmitted by the mobile station have the tendency to be lower than the strength of the signals received by a mobile station located outdoors. As a result of these lower signal strengths, geo-location efforts which rely on signal strengths may result in unsatisfactory location accuracy. Modifying pre-existing calibration data obtained outdoors may provide a way to simulate indoor calibration data characteristics.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 22 Jul 2014
- Earliest priority
- 5 Feb 2007
- Est. expiry
- 5 Feb 2028
- Validity challenges
- 3 on recordIPR2024-00032 · Patentability · filed by Apple, Inc.IPR2023-01211 · Patentability · filed by Google LLCIPR2023-01211 · Patentability · filed by Google LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ALLES, MARTIN · CARLSON, JOHN · MAHER, GEORGE · MAZLUM, SELCUK
- Classification
- G01S5/02G01S19/09G01S3/02H04W4/02G01S19/46H04W4/029
- Prosecution counsel
- Carmichael IP, PLLC
- Examiner
- PHAN, DAO
System and method for generating a location estimate using uniform and non-uniform grid points
The location of a wireless mobile device may be estimated using, at least in part, one or more pre-existing Network Measurement Reports (“NMRs”) which include calibration data for a number of locations within a geographic region. The calibration data for these locations is gathered and analyzed so that particular grid points within the geographic region can be determined and associated with a particular set or sets of calibration data from, for example, one or more NMRs. Sets of grid points may be evaluated as a function of parameters of the calibration data, and a set of grid points may be selected as a function of a predetermined criteria. The location of a mobile device in the geographic region may then be determined as a function of the predetermined criteria.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 26 Mar 2013
- Earliest priority
- 5 Feb 2007
- Est. expiry
- 16 Mar 2031
- Validity challenges
- 3 on recordIPR2023-01212 · Patentability · filed by Google LLCIPR2023-01212 · Patentability · filed by Google LLCIPR2024-00259 · Patentability · filed by Apple, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ALLES, MARTIN · CARLSON, JOHN · MAHER, GEORGE · MAZLUM, SELCUK
- Classification
- H04W4/00H04W24/00G01S5/02G01S19/09G01S19/46H04W4/02H04W4/029
- Prosecution counsel
- Carmichael IP, PLLC
- Examiner
- MEHRPOUR, MELODY
Also asserted in this case
4 moreThe docket lists 6 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 4 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Geoscope Technologies Pte., Ltd.
- Core tech
- G01S5/02G01S19/09G01S3/02H04W4/02
- Counsel
- Alexandra Judy Cho · Christopher Michael Gerson · Christopher William Bascom · Gregory Springsted · John Michael Erbach · Natalie Dana Lieber · Ryan Jay Singer · Saunak K. Desai · Timothy Gilman
- Firm
- Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, Schulte, Roth & Zabel, LLP (NA), Spotts Fain PC
Apple, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew William Robb · Anthony David Brzozowski II · Bethany Stevens · Brian A. Rosenthal · Brian Mark Buroker · Craig Crandall Reilly · Hannah Cannom · Jaysen S. Chung · Kim Do · Nathaniel R. Scharn · Ryan Iwahashi · Vivian Lu · Wendy W. Cai
- Firm
- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (DC), Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (DC-NA), Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (NY-NA), Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP (CA-NA), Law Office of Craig C. Reilly, Walker Stevens Cannom LLP
Counsel of record
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation of Partial Judgment of Noninfringement and Invalidity. (Dkt. No. 103). It is hereby ORDERED that judgment of noninfringement of claims 13, 15, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,320,264 (the “’264 Patent”) shall be and is hereby entered against Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”); it is further ORDERED that judgment of invalidity of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,097,784 (the “’784 Patent”) and claim 52 of U.S. Patent No. 8,400,358 (the “’358 Patent”) shall be and is hereby entered; it is further ORDERED that judgment shall be and is hereby entered in favor of Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and against Geoscope as to Counts Five and Six of Geoscope’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1); and it is further ORDERED that partial judgment shall be and is hereby entered in favor of Apple and against Geoscope as to Count Two of Geoscope’s Complaint for claim 52 of the ’358 Patent.”
Case 1:22-cv-01373 · E.D. Va. · closed 18 September 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:22-cv-01373?
1:22-cv-01373 is a patent infringement action brought by Geoscope Technologies Pte., Ltd. against Apple, Inc., filed on 1 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case closed on 18 September 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:22-cv-01373?
US8786494B2 (“Method to modify calibration data used to locate a mobile unit”), assigned to GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD., currently inactive; US8406753B2 (“System and method for generating a location estimate using uniform and non-uniform grid points”), assigned to GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD., currently active; US7561104B2 (“Method to modify calibration data used to locate a mobile unit”), assigned to GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.; US8400358B2 (“Method to modify calibration data used to locate a mobile unit”), assigned to GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.; US8320264B2 (“Method and apparatus for determining path loss by active signal detection”), assigned to GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.; US9097784B2 (“System and method to collect and modify calibration data”), assigned to GEOSCOPE TECHNOLOGIES PTE. LTD.. The record also lists Method and apparatus for determining path loss by active signal detection, Method to modify calibration data used to locate a mobile unit, System and method for generating a location estimate using uniform and non-uniform grid points and System and method to collect and modify calibration data.
How was case 1:22-cv-01373 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for defendant. The termination text reads: “This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation of Partial Judgment of Noninfringement and Invalidity. (Dkt. No. 103). It is hereby ORDERED that judgment of noninfringement of claims 13, 15, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,320,264 (the “’264 Patent”) shall be and is hereby entered against Plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte. Ltd. (“Geoscope”); it is further ORDERED that judgment of invalidity of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,097,784 (the “’784 Patent”) and claim 52 of U.S. Patent No. 8,400,358 (the “’358 Patent”) shall be and is hereby entered; it is further ORDERED that judgment s
What does judgment on the merits mean?
A judgment on the merits decides the substance of the claims, as opposed to ending the case on procedural grounds.
How long did case 1:22-cv-01373 take?
291 calendar days, from filing on 1 Dec 2022 to closure on 18 September 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-01373?
Alexandra Judy Cho, Christopher Michael Gerson, Christopher William Bascom, Gregory Springsted, John Michael Erbach, Natalie Dana Lieber, Ryan Jay Singer, Saunak K. Desai and Timothy Gilman are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Geoscope Technologies Pte.. Andrew William Robb, Anthony David Brzozowski II, Bethany Stevens, Brian A. Rosenthal, Brian Mark Buroker, Craig Crandall Reilly, Hannah Cannom, Jaysen S. Chung, Kim Do, Nathaniel R. Scharn, Ryan Iwahashi, Vivian Lu and Wendy W. Cai appear for defendant Apple.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-01373 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.