Carolyn W. Hafeman v. Google, LLC et al.
Patentability filed 26 Mar 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 5 Jun 2026, with US10789393B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed in part.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10789393B2
- Application no.
- US16/377768
- Case no.
- 24-1603
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 26 Mar 2024 – 5 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 801 days
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed in Part
- Products & marks
- Computer recovery or return
- Validity challenges
- 2 on record
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
Computer recovery or return
A computer return apparatus includes a processor. The apparatus includes a memory connected to the processor. The apparatus includes a display. The apparatus includes a return screen that the processor automatically causes to appear during or after boot-up of the processor on the display, that displays information concerning an owner who owns the computer, concerning user information about who the user is who the computer is assigned to for use, and return information for returning the computer to the owner from data stored in the memory. A method for displaying information to assist with returning a computer to its owner.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 29 Sep 2020
- Est. expiry
- 25 Nov 2022
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordIPR2022-01191 · Other · filed by Google LLCIPR2022-01190 · Other · filed by Google LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HAFEMAN, CAROLYN W.
- Classification
- G06F21/88G06F40/134G06F21/31G06F21/51G06F21/57G06F21/62G06F21/00
- Examiner
- REVAK, CHRISTOPHER A
Parties of record
Carolyn W. Hafeman
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Stephen Underwood
- Firm
- Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP
Google, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Matthew A. Smith
- Firm
- Smith Baluch LLP
- Also named
- Microsoft Corporation
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Stephen Underwood | Carolyn W. Hafeman | Plaintiff |
| Matthew A. Smith | Google, LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: DISMISSED-IN-PART, AFFIRMED-IN-PART”
Case 24-1603 · Fed. Cir. · closed 5 June 2026
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 24-1603?
24-1603 is a patent patentability brought by Carolyn W. Hafeman against Google, LLC, filed on 26 Mar 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 5 June 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 24-1603?
US10789393B2 (“Computer recovery or return”), assigned to HAFEMAN, CAROLYN W., currently inactive. The record also lists Computer recovery or return.
How was case 24-1603 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed in part. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: DISMISSED-IN-PART, AFFIRMED-IN-PART”
How long did case 24-1603 take?
801 calendar days, from filing on 26 Mar 2024 to closure on 5 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 24-1603?
Stephen Underwood is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Carolyn W. Hafeman. Matthew A. Smith appears for defendant Google.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 24-1603 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.