Innovaport v. Home Depot: In-Store Navigation Patent Dispute Ends in Settlement
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Innovaport LLC v. Home Depot, Inc. |
| Case Number | 3:23-cv-00225 |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin |
| Duration | April 11, 2023 – March 14, 2024 338 days |
| Outcome | Settlement — Claims Dismissed with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Home Depot’s in-store product location functionality |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent licensing entity asserting IP rights related to retail customer navigation and product location systems.
🛡️ Defendant
One of the nation’s largest home improvement retailers with sophisticated in-store digital tools for product location and navigation.
Patents at Issue
This lawsuit involved four U.S. patents covering apparatus and methods for providing in-store product location information to customers — technology increasingly central to modern retail operations. These patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
- • U.S. Patent No. 9,990,670 (App. No. 14/999,634)
- • U.S. Patent No. 8,787,933 (App. No. 13/815,667)
- • U.S. Patent No. 8,775,260 (App. No. 12/924,740)
- • U.S. Patent No. 9,489,690 (App. No. 14/120,873)
Deploying in-store navigation?
Check if your retail technology might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case closed on March 14, 2024, with all claims dismissed with prejudice by stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). This indicates a negotiated resolution where Innovaport’s claims against Home Depot were permanently dismissed, while Home Depot’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice.
Verdict Cause Analysis
The asymmetric dismissal structure—Innovaport’s claims with prejudice, Home Depot’s counterclaims without prejudice—is a hallmark of confidential settlement agreements. It protects Home Depot from re-litigation of the same infringement claims, while preserving its ability to raise defenses in future proceedings. This resolution suggests a calculated risk-benefit assessment by Home Depot, likely factoring in litigation costs, commercial sensitivity of its navigation technology, and the strategic nature of Innovaport’s multi-patent portfolio assertion.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in retail in-store navigation technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in retail navigation space
- See which companies are most active in this technology
- Understand assertion patterns by PAEs
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
In-store product navigation systems
4 Patents Asserted
Covering core retail navigation
Settlement Outcome
Signifies licensing viability
✅ Key Takeaways
Stipulated dismissals with asymmetric prejudice terms are reliable indicators of confidential settlement with licensing components.
Search related case law →Multi-family patent assertions in retail technology complicate IPR strategies and increase settlement pressure.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
Four U.S. patents were asserted: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,990,670; 8,787,933; 8,775,260; and 9,489,690 — all covering apparatus and methods for in-store product location information delivery.
The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), indicating a negotiated resolution. Innovaport’s claims were dismissed with prejudice; Home Depot’s counterclaims without prejudice.
It reinforces that in-store navigation patents are viable assertion vehicles against large retailers, and that multi-patent portfolio strategies can drive early settlement even against defendants with substantial litigation resources.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database (via Google Patents)
- PACER Case Lookup – Case No. 3:23-cv-00225
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
- PatSnap IP Intelligence Solutions
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.