Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Global Connect Technology v. Signify — Patent Infringement Dismissed | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

Global Connect Technology v. Signify: Dismissed With Prejudice in 172 Days

Global Connect Technology, Inc. filed an infringement action against Signify, NV in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US7246128B2 against Signify's Philips Lighting online shopping platform. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiff after just 172 days, before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.

Resolution time
172days
172 days — resolved before defendant filed any responsive pleading
Patents asserted
1
US7246128B2 — online shopping system, e-commerce platform technology
Outcome
Dismissed with Prejudice
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice; defendant may not be re-sued on the same claims
Cost ruling
Each Party Bears Own Costs
Court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

E.D. Texas online shopping patent suit ends before Signify responds

Global Connect Technology, Inc. filed suit against Signify, NV — the parent company behind the Philips Lighting brand — in the Eastern District of Texas on December 11, 2025, asserting infringement of US7246128B2. The accused product is Signify's online shopping system, specifically its website https://www.usa.lighting.philips.com/ and associated mobile application. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most active patent judges in the country, with Global Connect Technology represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC.

On June 1, 2026, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, exercising its right to dismiss unilaterally before any answer or summary judgment motion had been filed by Signify. The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, ordering that all claims by plaintiff against defendant are dismissed with prejudice and that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed with Prejudice.

The case was resolved in 172 days — well before the ordinary pace of E.D. Texas patent litigation — and was terminated before Signify was required to mount any substantive defence. A pre-answer dismissal with prejudice typically signals that the plaintiff elected not to pursue the matter further on the merits; however, the specific reasons for the dismissal and whether any agreement was reached between the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.

See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →
Case at a glance
DefendantSignify, NV
CourtTexas Eastern District Court
JudgeRodney Gilstrap
FiledDecember 11, 2025
ClosedJune 1, 2026
Duration172 days
OutcomeDismissed with Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed with Prejudice
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Eastern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 172 days

172 days — resolved before defendant filed any responsive pleading

Case timeline: Complaint filed DEC 11 2025 — 172 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Global Connect Technology, Inc. v Signify, NV from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Eastern District Court. DEC 11 2025 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings JUN 1 2026 Dismissed with Prejudice 172 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US7246128B2 — online shopping system and e-commerce platform technology

Publication No.US7246128B2
Application No.US10/461182
Patent details
ProductOnline shopping system and e-commerce platform technology
Cited in actionDecember 11, 2025
Technical brief · sourced from PatSnap patent database
Patent figurePatent figure
Representative claim (1 of 5 independent)
1. A computer program tangibly stored on a computer-readable medium and configured to cause a computer to enable a user interface for encoding a graphical representation of an individual point of view (iPOV), the computer program comprising instructions to: receive input from a user defining the graphical representation including at least one category; retrieve unique identifiers for the at least one category from at least one of a knowledge database; obtain significance and interest relations for the at least one category based on a placement of the at least one category on the graphical representation; determin…
Technical background
RELATED APPLICATIONS This application claims priority to, and incorporates by reference, the entire disclosure of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/388,095, filed on Jun. 12, 2002. FIELD This systems and methods relate to the field of computers, and more particularly to the field of computer database systems and methods. BACKGROUND The advent of the computer has permitted dramatic increases in the capability to store and manipulate data. The development of computer networks, such as the Internet, has provi…
Patent family
14 family members across 6 jurisdictions (AU, CA, JP, EP, US, WO)
PatSnap Eureka · FTO Search Agent
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7246128B2?

Any company operating an online shopping system, product catalogue website, or branded e-commerce mobile application in the consumer lighting, smart-home, or adjacent electronics space should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US7246128B2. The patent has not been subjected to claim construction or validity adjudication in this case, meaning its enforceable scope remains undefined. Companies planning new platform builds, acquisitions of e-commerce assets, or expansions of existing retail web infrastructure are particularly exposed.

Run FTO in Eureka
Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 4.) In the Notice, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned case against Defendant with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case between Plaintiff and Defendant not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above captioned case as no parties or claims remain.
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:25-cv-01210, Texas Eastern District Court

The court's order accepted a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed by the plaintiff before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment. The with-prejudice designation makes the dismissal a final disposition, barring the plaintiff from re-asserting the same claims against Signify, while leaving the patent's validity and claim scope entirely unaddressed on the merits.

PACER case 2:25-cv-01210 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Dismissal terms

Dismissed with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Rule 41 pre-answer voluntary dismissal with prejudice

Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. By filing the notice with prejudice, the plaintiff surrendered the right to re-file the same claims against Signify in any future action. The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal and directed the clerk to close the case.

Plaintiff-initiated, pre-answer
Patent holder outcome

Plaintiff forfeits right to re-litigate US7246128B2 against Signify

A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata. Global Connect Technology cannot re-assert the same patent claims from US7246128B2 against Signify's online shopping platform in a future action. The patent itself remains in force and may still be asserted against other defendants, but this particular avenue of enforcement against Signify is permanently closed.

Bars future suit vs. Signify
Defendant outcome

Signify exits without filing an answer or incurring adjudicated liability

Signify, NV was dismissed before being required to file any responsive pleading or substantive defence. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, meaning Signify recovers no legal costs from the plaintiff. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal provides Signify with permanent protection against re-assertion of these specific claims by this plaintiff.

No liability, no cost award
Commercial implications

E-commerce patent risk: early exits preserve options elsewhere

A pre-answer dismissal with prejudice in an E.D. Texas patent case suggests the plaintiff chose not to invest in full-scale litigation against this particular defendant. US7246128B2 remains an active patent and could be asserted against other operators of online shopping systems. Competitors and e-commerce platform operators in the lighting and smart-home sector should be aware that this patent has not been adjudicated on validity or scope.

Patent validity untested
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:25-cv-01210 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffGlobal Connect Technology, Inc.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantSignify, NVCompany/Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristopher A. HoneaAttorneyCounsel for Global Connect Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmGarteiser Honea PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Global Connect Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Rodney GilstrapJudgeTexas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

R&D signals in the online shopping system patent space

Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from Global Connect Technology v. Signify — covering portfolio activity, filing trends, and white-space opportunities in e-commerce platform technology.

Patent portfolio

Global Connect Technology's e-commerce patent portfolio activity

Global Connect Technology's assertion of US7246128B2 (application US10/461182) against a major lighting retailer's online platform suggests an active enforcement posture. Mapping the assignee's broader portfolio — including any continuations, divisionals, or related applications filed around the same priority date — may reveal additional patents with overlapping coverage of modern e-commerce architectures.

Plaintiff portfolio mapping
Technology landscape

Filing trends in online shopping system and e-commerce platform patents

Early-2000s online shopping system patents are entering the late stage of their 20-year terms, but continuation filings and claim amendments can extend effective coverage. Tracking recent grant activity in IPC classes covering e-commerce transaction systems and product catalogue platforms can reveal where new IP barriers are forming — particularly relevant for companies building or acquiring digital retail infrastructure in the smart-home and lighting sectors.

E-commerce patent filing trends
Competitor IP posture

Signify's patent position in digital commerce and connected lighting

Signify, NV holds a substantial IP portfolio in connected lighting and smart-home technology. Analysing their patent filings in e-commerce interface, IoT retail, and digital platform categories can reveal whether they are building defensive IP around their own online shopping infrastructure — a signal relevant to competitors and potential partners in the smart lighting sector.

Signify digital commerce IP
White space

Adjacent innovation opportunities near online shopping system claims

The claim landscape around foundational online shopping system patents filed in the early 2000s may leave white space in areas such as AI-driven product recommendation, voice-commerce integration, and AR-assisted product visualisation for lighting and smart-home retail. Identifying claim gaps in this space could support a defensive or offensive filing strategy for companies investing in next-generation e-commerce experiences.

E-commerce IP white space
Related litigation

Similar patent cases: online shopping systems in E.D. Texas

Explore comparable infringement actions asserting online shopping system and e-commerce platform patents before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Global Connect Technology, Inc. patent enforcement history, Texas Eastern District Court case history, Global Connect Technology, Inc.'s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
E.D. Texas e-commerce suitsRule 41 pre-answer dismissalsGarteiser Honea patent docketOnline shopping system patents
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the e-commerce patent IP landscape

A fast, pre-answer dismissal with prejudice in E.D. Texas leaves the asserted patent intact and validity untested — with implications for the broader online retail technology sector.

US7246128B2 remains enforceable — other e-commerce operators remain exposed

Because this case ended before any claim construction, validity challenge, or merits ruling, US7246128B2 has not been adjudicated. Any operator of an online shopping system with features arguably within the patent's claims should evaluate their exposure independently. The dismissal provides no precedent on scope or validity.

Pre-answer dismissal with prejudice is a strategic signal worth monitoring

When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant answers, it consistently signals one of a small number of scenarios — including private resolution or reassessment of claim strength. Neither explanation is confirmed in the public record. Monitoring Global Connect Technology's subsequent filing activity against other defendants may reveal the broader enforcement strategy.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper signals on patent assertion entity activity in the Eastern District of Texas and online shopping system patent risk.
Plaintiff filing historyUS7246128B2 claim scopeComparable E.D. Texas exits
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Global v Signify — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Assess your e-commerce patent risk before litigation finds you

US7246128B2 remains active and judicially unconstrued. Use PatSnap Eureka to run an FTO search against your online shopping platform and monitor Global Connect Technology's enforcement activity in real time.

Disclaimer

This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.

Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.