Jackson v. Walmart: Parked Vehicle Locator Patent Ends in Consent Judgment
John Jackson filed a patent infringement action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in the District of Columbia District Court asserting US10176719B1, covering a system for locating a parked vehicle. The case resolved by consent judgment in just 77 days, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees.
Parked-vehicle locator patent resolved swiftly via consent judgment
On 24 February 2023, plaintiff John Jackson filed a patent infringement action against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Case No. 1:23-cv-00504), presided over by Judge Rudolph Contreras. The sole patent asserted was US10176719B1 (application number US15/713641), directed to a system for locating a parked vehicle. Jackson was represented by Lev Ivan Gabriel Iwashko of The Iwashko Law Firm PLLC; no defendant counsel is recorded in the available docket.
The case closed on 12 May 2023 — just 77 days after filing. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order is styled as a stipulated dismissal: the parties agreed the action be dismissed with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
A disposition within 77 days of filing is notably swift for patent litigation and suggests the parties reached agreement before substantive motion practice or claim construction proceedings. What prompted the rapid resolution — and whether any commercial terms accompanied the court-entered judgment — is not reflected in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 77 days
Case resolved in 77 days — well below typical patent litigation timelines
US10176719B1 — System for locating a parked vehicle
Any company — retailer, mobility platform, or parking technology provider — deploying a system that assists users in locating a parked vehicle should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US10176719B1. The patent survived this litigation without a validity ruling and without claim construction. Its scope as applied to competing products is untested in the public record, making independent FTO analysis the only reliable way to assess exposure.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated order records agreement by the parties to dismiss the action with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The order's dismissal-with-prejudice framing bars any re-filing of these infringement claims against Walmart, but does not place any validity finding on record regarding US10176719B1. The specific terms agreed between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Consent judgment: a court-entered, binding agreed resolution
A consent judgment is a final judgment entered by the court on terms to which both parties have agreed. It carries the same legal force as a litigated judgment and formally closes the case. Here, the stipulation records a dismissal with prejudice, meaning Jackson cannot re-file the same infringement claim against Walmart on US10176719B1. The specific terms agreed between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
Binding & finalJackson's infringement claim ends — no public damages award recorded
For plaintiff John Jackson, the consent judgment closes his infringement action against Walmart with prejudice. No damages award, royalty rate, or ongoing license obligation is disclosed in the public record. The dismissal with prejudice means this specific claim against Walmart cannot be relitigated, though US10176719B1 itself remains a granted patent that could be asserted against other defendants.
Action closed with prejudiceWalmart exits the dispute — no admitted liability on record
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. secures a dismissal with prejudice, ending Jackson's infringement claim against it regarding US10176719B1. The consent judgment records no admission of liability. Each party bearing its own costs suggests no prevailing-party fee-shifting was agreed. The specific commercial terms, if any, are not disclosed in the available record.
No liability on recordSwift exit signals early resolution pressure in retail-tech patent suits
Resolution within 77 days — before any substantive merits rulings — is consistent with early settlement dynamics seen in individual-inventor suits against large retailers. US10176719B1 remains a live patent. Retailers and navigation/location technology developers operating in the parked-vehicle locator space should note that the patent survived this proceeding without a validity challenge reaching the merits.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | John Jackson | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Wal-mart Stores, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lev Ivan Gabriel Iwashko | Attorney | Counsel for John JacksonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Iwashko Law Firm PLLC | Law Firm | Representing John JacksonSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rudolph Contreras | Judge | Columbia District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the vehicle-location patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Jackson v. Walmart — covering US10176719B1 and the broader parked-vehicle locator technology landscape.
John Jackson's filing activity around vehicle-location technology
Individual inventors who successfully prosecute and assert patents often file continuations or related applications to extend coverage. Monitoring the patent family stemming from US15/713641 — and any new applications by John Jackson in vehicle-location or navigation — can provide early warning of future enforcement activity in this domain.
Inventor portfolio watchFiling trends in parked-vehicle and parking-navigation systems
The parked-vehicle locator space is seeing rising filing activity from retailers, automotive OEMs, and mobile-app developers. Understanding which companies are filing in this space — and where claim boundaries are being drawn — is essential for product teams building parking, navigation, or curbside-pickup features.
Rising filing activityWalmart's patent activity in location and in-store navigation
Walmart has filed patents in customer navigation, store mapping, and proximity-detection technologies. Mapping their portfolio in the vehicle and parking-location space reveals both their defensive IP position and potential gaps that competitors or inventors may target next.
Retail location-tech IPDesign-around and adjacent opportunities near US10176719B1
With US10176719B1 surviving litigation without claim construction, R&D teams should map the patent's claim elements to identify design-around pathways. Adjacent opportunities — such as AI-enhanced parking prediction, multi-modal navigation, or indoor-outdoor handoff systems — may represent white space not covered by existing filings in this family.
Design-around potentialSimilar patent infringement cases: vehicle location & navigation technology
Explore related patent infringement actions in vehicle-location and navigation technology filed in U.S. District Courts, including individual-inventor enforcement patterns against retailers.
What this case signals for the vehicle-location patent IP landscape
A solo inventor enforcing a parked-vehicle locator patent against a Fortune 1 retailer — and resolving in 77 days — carries clear signals for IP teams.
US10176719B1 remains active and enforceable after this dispute
No invalidity ruling, IPR petition, or claim construction ruling emerged from this case. The patent exited litigation intact. Companies in the retail, navigation, or mobile parking-technology space working on vehicle location features should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and consider FTO analysis.
Swift consent judgments in individual-inventor cases limit public record
Cases resolved this quickly rarely generate claim-construction or damages precedent. The absence of a merits ruling leaves the patent's scope untested in court. Competitors cannot rely on this outcome to determine whether their products clear the claims of US10176719B1.
Jackson v Wal-mart — key questions answered
The case was resolved by consent judgment. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order records a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees. The specific terms of the resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
John Jackson asserted US10176719B1 (application number US15/713641), directed to a system for locating a parked vehicle. This was the sole patent asserted in the infringement action filed in the District of Columbia District Court.
The case lasted 77 days, filed on 24 February 2023 and closed on 12 May 2023. This is notably swift for patent litigation and suggests the parties reached agreement before substantive motion practice or claim construction proceedings took place.
No validity determination was made. The case resolved by consent judgment before any merits ruling on validity or infringement. US10176719B1 remains a granted patent; its claim scope has not been construed by any court in the available record.
The dismissal with prejudice bars John Jackson from re-filing the same infringement claims against Walmart regarding US10176719B1. However, the patent itself remains in force and could be asserted against other defendants. The specific commercial terms of the resolution, if any, are not disclosed in the available public record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.