Infringement action filed 20 Apr 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and closed 5 Apr 2023, with US10467478B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
A method includes generating, with a mobile device having a camera, images of a portion of a real space containing an object having a position. The control device tracks the position of the object based at least on the images received from the mobile device. The control device monitors the position of the object for an event conforming to a rule specified at the control device. The event is based on the rule and the position of the object in the real space. The control device, or a client device, generates an indication that the event has been detected by the control device.
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
"On February 22, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the Complaint without prejudice, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. ECF No. 15. The order stated that if Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within that time, the action would be dismissed. Upon the Parties’ joint motion for an extension, the Court granted Plaintiff until March 31, 2023, to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 19. To date, Plaintiff has filed neither an amended complaint nor an additional request for an extension. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the case and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the case."
Case 3:22-cv-00547 · S.D. Cal. · closed 5 April 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.
3:22-cv-00547 is a patent infringement action brought by Infinity Cube, Ltd. against Mangolytics, Inc., filed on 20 Apr 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The case closed on 5 April 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 3:22-cv-00547?
US10467478B2 (“System and method for mobile feedback generation using video processing and object tracking”), assigned to INFINITY CUBE LIMITED, currently active. The record also lists System and method for mobile feedback generation using video processing and object tracking.
How was case 3:22-cv-00547 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: "On February 22, 2023, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the Complaint without prejudice, and granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days. ECF No. 15. The order stated that if Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within that time, the action would be dismissed. Upon the Parties’ joint motion for an extension, the Court granted Plaintiff until March 31, 2023, to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 19. To date, Plaintiff has filed neither an amended complaint nor an additional request for an extension. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES
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 3:22-cv-00547 take?
350 calendar days, from filing on 20 Apr 2022 to closure on 5 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:22-cv-00547?
Andrew D. Skale is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Infinity Cube. Dhaivat Hasmukh Shah and James G. Snell appear for defendant Mangolytics.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 3:22-cv-00547 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:22-cv-00547 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.
