Lab Technology LLC v. MSS Electronics, Inc.
Infringement action filed 15 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and closed 19 Mar 2026, with US9219982B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9219982B2
- Application no.
- US14/730866
- Case no.
- 7:26-cv-00374
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D.N.Y.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New York
- Chief judge
- Philip M. Halpern
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 15 Jan 2026 – 19 Mar 2026
- Duration
- 63 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Apparatus and method for automatically refreshing a display of a telephone
- 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
Apparatus and method for automatically refreshing a display of a telephone
Methods and apparatus for refreshing a display of a telephone. A telephone apparatus includes a telephone having a display panel and function by which a user can access a plurality of communication services provided over a communication network. The function may represent a given set of conditions associated with a user, such as static and variable conditions. The function is typically associated with one or more commonly used communication services that would be used by a user under a given set of conditions. A method for automatically refreshing a screen on a display panel of a telephone based on a function change includes displaying on a telephone display a first screen based on a function, the display representing a commonly used communication service associated with the function, and selecting a function based on information.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 22 Dec 2015
- Est. expiry
- 22 Jun 2026
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- CHIU, SHIN CHEUNG SIMON
- Classification
- H04M3/42H04M11/04H04W24/00H04M3/487H04M1/725H04W4/02H04M1/72457H04M1/72403H04M1/72469
- Prosecution counsel
- Sunstein LLP
- Examiner
- ADDY, THJUAN K
Parties of record
Lab Technology LLC
- Core tech
- H04M3/42H04M11/04H04W24/00H04M3/487
- Counsel
- Isaac Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
MSS Electronics, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Rabicoff | Lab Technology LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The request to dismiss this matter with prejudice is hereby GRANTED.”
Case 7:26-cv-00374 · S.D.N.Y. · closed 19 March 2026
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 7:26-cv-00374?
7:26-cv-00374 is a patent infringement action brought by Lab Technology LLC against MSS Electronics, Inc., filed on 15 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case closed on 19 March 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 7:26-cv-00374?
US9219982B2 (“Apparatus and method for automatically refreshing a display of a telephone”), assigned to LAB TECHNOLOGY LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Apparatus and method for automatically refreshing a display of a telephone.
How was case 7:26-cv-00374 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “The request to dismiss this matter with prejudice is hereby GRANTED.”
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 7:26-cv-00374 take?
63 calendar days, from filing on 15 Jan 2026 to closure on 19 March 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 7:26-cv-00374?
Chief Judge Philip M. Halpern presided. Isaac Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Lab Technology.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 7:26-cv-00374 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.