Book a demo

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

Try now
Haley IP v. Bridgestone Americas | Patent Lawsuit 2:22-cv-00230

Haley IP, LLC v. Bridgestone Americas, Inc.

2:22-cv-00230 E.D. Tex. Closed US10204261B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 24 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 9 Mar 2023, with US10204261B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US10204261B2
Application no.
US15/094672
Case no.
2:22-cv-00230
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
24 Jun 2022 – 9 Mar 2023
Duration
258 days
Basis of termination
Case Dismissed
Products & marks
Camera in vehicle reports identity of driver
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:22-cv-00230, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US10204261B2 Active App. US15/094672

Camera in vehicle reports identity of driver

A device in an automobile includes a camera that takes images of drivers while they are driving. It detects and reports identity of the driver with automated image processing. It also reports how much the car is driven, by whom, when, where, carrying what load, at what speed compared to the speed limit, with what pattern of hard breaking or hard cornering, whether the driver looked into the blind spot before changing lanes, and whether the driver allowed their phone to enter a restricted state while driving. The device may be built in or retrofit. The retrofit device can detect if it is depowered or removed from the vehicle and report this to the insurance company, rental company, parents, and employers.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
12 Feb 2019
Earliest priority
20 Nov 2012
Est. expiry
2 Apr 2034
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06K9/00H04N5/235G06Q40/08H04N5/225B60W50/12B60W40/09B60W40/08B60W30/18B60K28/02H04W4/80H04N5/33H04M1/60G07C5/06G07C5/00H04N23/11
Examiner
VILLECCO, JOHN
US10204261B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10204261B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

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

“Before the Court is Plaintiff Haley IP, LLC’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (Dkt. No. 46). In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT.”

Case 2:22-cv-00230 · E.D. Tex. · closed 9 March 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.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2:22-cv-00230?

2:22-cv-00230 is a patent infringement action brought by Haley IP, LLC against Bridgestone Americas, Inc., filed on 24 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 9 March 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 2:22-cv-00230?

US10204261B2 (“Camera in vehicle reports identity of driver”), assigned to HALEY IP LLC, currently active. The record also lists Camera in vehicle reports identity of driver.

How was case 2:22-cv-00230 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Plaintiff Haley IP, LLC’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (Dkt. No. 46). In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT.”

What does dismissal without prejudice mean?

A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.

How long did case 2:22-cv-00230 take?

258 calendar days, from filing on 24 Jun 2022 to closure on 9 March 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-00230?

William P. Ramey III is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Haley IP. Drew Martin Thomas, Jeffrey Scott Patterson and Matthew Bruce Brower appear for defendant Bridgestone Americas.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:22-cv-00230 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-00230 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

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