Locket IP v. DriveTime: UI Patent Dispute Ends in Prejudicial Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Locket IP, LLC v. DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc. |
| Case Number | 4:22-cv-00921 (E.D. Tex.) |
| Court | Eastern District of Texas |
| Duration | Oct 2022 – Jan 2026 3 years 3 months |
| Outcome | Stipulated Dismissal – Plaintiff with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | DriveTime Automotive Group’s consumer-facing digital platforms (vehicle browsing, financing applications, customer account interfaces) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Non-practicing entity (NPE) holding intellectual property rights in user interface and localization technologies.
🛡️ Defendant
Leading used vehicle retailer and subprime auto financing company with extensive digital platforms.
Patents at Issue
This litigation centered on two patents covering user interface localization and region-of-interest detection technology:
- • U.S. Patent No. 9,990,112 B2 — Methods and apparatus for locating regions of interest in a user interface.
- • U.S. Patent No. 10,514,832 B2 — Continuation-related patent extending claim coverage over related interface interaction methods.
Developing a digital platform?
Check if your UI localization or region-of-interest features might infringe these or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Court entered an order dismissing all claims asserted against DriveTime WITH PREJUDICE. DriveTime’s counterclaims were dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No damages award was publicly disclosed, indicating a confidential licensing agreement or covenant not to sue.
Key Legal Issues
This case highlights the complexities of user interface patent litigation and the strategic use of stipulated dismissals. The asymmetric dismissal prejudice terms (plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without) are a signature indicator of a privately negotiated resolution, allowing the defendant to preserve invalidity counterclaims as leverage.
Drafting patents for your UI?
Learn from this outcome. Use AI to draft stronger claims for your user interface technologies.
Power Your Patent Strategy with PatSnap Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, PatSnap Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis for UI Patents
This case highlights critical IP risks in user interface technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this UI litigation.
- View active UI localization patents
- See companies active in UI technology assertions
- Understand claim construction challenges for UI patents
🔍 Check My Product’s UI Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your digital platform or UI features.
- Input your UI description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking UI patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report for your digital platform
High Risk Area
UI localization and region-of-interest detection
Active Assertion Space
Numerous UI patents targeting digital platforms
Strategic Dismissal
Parties negotiated a confidential resolution
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys
Stipulated dismissals with asymmetric prejudice terms are typical of confidential licensing resolutions.
Search related case law →Eastern District of Texas remains an NPE-favorable venue, demanding rigorous claim construction preparation.
Explore Markman precedents →For R&D Teams
Conduct FTO analysis for UI localization features before deploying new digital platforms.
Start FTO analysis for my UI product →Ensure software vendor contracts include patent indemnification for third-party UI infringement claims.
Try AI patent drafting for UI features →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.