Hayden AI Technologies, Inc. v. Seon Design USA, Corp.
Infringement action filed 11 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and closed 16 Oct 2023, with US11003919B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case terminated.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US11003919B1
- Application no.
- US17/072816
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-06142
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D.N.Y.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New York
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 11 Aug 2023 – 16 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 66 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Terminated
- Products & marks
- Systems and methods for detecting traffic violations using mobile detection devices
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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
Systems and methods for detecting traffic violations using mobile detection devices
Disclosed are systems and methods for detecting traffic violations using mobile detection devices. Videos captured by the mobile detection devices can be processed on the mobile detection devices to extract data and information concerning a potential traffic violation involving a vehicle and a restricted road area. The mobile detection devices can transmit such data and information to a server configured to make a final determination as to whether a traffic violation has occurred by comparing the data and information received from at least two mobile detection devices. The server can also construct semantic annotated maps using data and information received from the mobile detection devices. Updated versions of the semantic annotated maps can be transmitted back to the mobile detection devices to aid in traffic violation detection.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 11 May 2021
- Est. expiry
- 16 Oct 2040
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- GHADIOK, VAIBHAV · CARSON, CHRISTOPHER · SHEN, BO
- Classification
- G06K9/00G06K9/62H04N5/247H04N7/18G01S19/33G01C22/02H04N5/225B60R16/023H04L29/08G06V10/764H04N23/90
- Prosecution counsel
- LEVINE BAGADE HAN LLP
- Examiner
- ANDERSON, II, JAMES M
Parties of record
Hayden AI Technologies, Inc.
- Core tech
- G06K9/00G06K9/62H04N5/247H04N7/18
- Counsel
- David Tellekson · James S. Trainor · Nicholas Klenow · Retley G. Locke
- Firm
- Fenwick & West, LLP
Seon Design USA, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Aakash Patel · Coraleine Kitt · Douglas Anderson Grady · Jordan Lavine · Michael Bonella · Paul J. Bruene
- Firm
- Baker & Hostetler LLP (SEA), Flaster Greenberg PC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| David Tellekson | Hayden AI Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| James S. Trainor | Hayden AI Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Nicholas Klenow | Hayden AI Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Retley G. Locke | Hayden AI Technologies, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Aakash Patel | Seon Design USA, Corp. | Defendant |
| Coraleine Kitt | Seon Design USA, Corp. | Defendant |
| Douglas Anderson Grady | Seon Design USA, Corp. | Defendant |
| Jordan Lavine | Seon Design USA, Corp. | Defendant |
| Michael Bonella | Seon Design USA, Corp. | Defendant |
| Paul J. Bruene | Seon Design USA, Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Incomplete ACO Case Termination/Statistical/NonReportable ClosingRE:Electronic Order dated 10/13/2023. (TT) (Entered: 10/16/2023)”
Case 1:23-cv-06142 · E.D.N.Y. · closed 16 October 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 1:23-cv-06142?
1:23-cv-06142 is a patent infringement action brought by Hayden AI Technologies, Inc. against Seon Design USA, Corp., filed on 11 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The case closed on 16 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-06142?
US11003919B1 (“Systems and methods for detecting traffic violations using mobile detection devices”), assigned to HAYDEN AI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., currently active. The record also lists Systems and methods for detecting traffic violations using mobile detection devices.
How was case 1:23-cv-06142 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case terminated. The termination text reads: “Incomplete ACO Case Termination/Statistical/NonReportable ClosingRE:Electronic Order dated 10/13/2023. (TT) (Entered: 10/16/2023)”
How long did case 1:23-cv-06142 take?
66 calendar days, from filing on 11 Aug 2023 to closure on 16 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-06142?
David Tellekson, James S. Trainor, Nicholas Klenow and Retley G. Locke are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Hayden AI Technologies. Aakash Patel, Coraleine Kitt, Douglas Anderson Grady, Jordan Lavine, Michael Bonella and Paul J. Bruene appear for defendant Seon Design USA.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-06142 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.