John Jackson v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.
Infringement action filed 24 Feb 2023 in the Columbia District Court and closed 12 May 2023, with US10176719B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10176719B1
- Application no.
- US15/713641
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-00504
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- Columbia District Court
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- Rudolph Contreras
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 24 Feb 2023 – 12 May 2023
- Duration
- 77 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- System for locating a parked vehicle
- 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
System for locating a parked vehicle
A system for locating a parked vehicle includes an elongated rod mountable on the parked vehicle and supporting a plurality of lights in an array extending along and about the elongated rod, and a portable control device adapted to be carried remote from the parked vehicle and activated to wirelessly communicate with and control the plurality of lights supported by the elongated rod.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 8 Jan 2019
- Est. expiry
- 23 Sep 2037
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- JACKSON, JOHN
- Classification
- G08G1/123B60Q1/50
- Examiner
- GHULAMALI, QUTBUDDIN
Parties of record
John Jackson
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Lev Ivan Gabriel Iwashko
- Firm
- The Iwashko Law Firm PLLC
Wal-mart Stores, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Lev Ivan Gabriel Iwashko | John Jackson | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, by their repective attorneys, that said action be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys, fees. This case is hereby closed.”
Case 1:23-cv-00504 · Columbia District Court · closed 12 May 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-00504?
1:23-cv-00504 is a patent infringement action brought by John Jackson against Wal-mart Stores, Inc., filed on 24 Feb 2023 in the Columbia District Court. The case closed on 12 May 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-00504?
US10176719B1 (“System for locating a parked vehicle”), assigned to JACKSON, JOHN, currently active. The record also lists System for locating a parked vehicle.
How was case 1:23-cv-00504 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, by their repective attorneys, that said action be DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys, fees. This case is hereby closed.”
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:23-cv-00504 take?
77 calendar days, from filing on 24 Feb 2023 to closure on 12 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00504?
Chief Judge Rudolph Contreras presided. Lev Ivan Gabriel Iwashko is recorded as counsel for plaintiff John Jackson.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00504 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.