Lonestar Biometrics, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Infringement action filed 28 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 9 Aug 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9241082B2US9232088B1US9560293B2
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-00240
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 28 Jun 2022 – 9 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 407 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Samsung Galaxy S21 FE
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
Method and apparatus for scanning through a display screen
Scanners built in display devices that can be controlled to have a moment of see-through either entirely or on a specified portion are described. During the see-through moment, a scanning object (e.g., a currency bill) placed against the display is scanned, hence on-screen scanner. An exemplary such display device is a Liquid Crystal Display (LCD). Without affecting the display functions of an LCD device, an image sensing module is provided with light sources. By controlling the liquid crystals in the LCD unit, the reflected light from an object placed against the LCD device to be imaged is projected onto an image sensor (or array) to generate an image of the object.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 19 Jan 2016
- Est. expiry
- 20 Aug 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HU, DARWIN
- Classification
- H04N1/04H04N1/28H04N1/50H04N1/10H04N1/193H04N1/195H04N1/387H04N1/00H04N1/028
- Prosecution counsel
- LogicPatents, LLC
- Examiner
- WORKU, NEGUSSIE
Scanning in a defined region on a display screen
A computing device is equipped with a display device primarily for display purpose. Techniques are described to modify such a display device to have the scanning capability and define a scanning region, where only the part of a scanning object falling into the scanning region is scanned.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 5 Jan 2016
- Est. expiry
- 20 Aug 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HU, DARWIN
- Classification
- H04N1/04H04N1/00H04N1/28H04N1/50H04N1/10H04N1/193H04N1/028
- Prosecution counsel
- LogicPatents, LLC
- Examiner
- WORKU, NEGUSSIE
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Lonestar Biometrics, LLC
- Core tech
- H04N1/04H04N1/28H04N1/50H04N1/10
- Counsel
- John Andrew Rubino · Justin Kurt Truelove · Michael Mondelli III
- Firm
- Rubino Ip, Rubino Law LLC, Truelove Law Firm
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Melissa Richards Smith
- Firm
- Gillam & Smith LLP
- Also named
- Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| John Andrew Rubino | Lonestar Biometrics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Justin Kurt Truelove | Lonestar Biometrics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Michael Mondelli III | Lonestar Biometrics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Melissa Richards Smith | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Lonestar against Samsung in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
Case 2:22-cv-00240 · E.D. Tex. · closed 9 August 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 2:22-cv-00240?
2:22-cv-00240 is a patent infringement action brought by Lonestar Biometrics, LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., filed on 28 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 9 August 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:22-cv-00240?
US9241082B2 (“Method and apparatus for scanning through a display screen”), assigned to LONESTAR BIOMETRICS LLC, currently active; US9232088B1 (“Scanning in a defined region on a display screen”), assigned to LONESTAR BIOMETRICS LLC, currently active; US9560293B2 (“Method and apparatus for image capture through a display screen”), assigned to LONESTAR BIOMETRICS LLC. The record also lists Samsung Galaxy S21 FE.
How was case 2:22-cv-00240 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Lonestar against Samsung in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
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 2:22-cv-00240 take?
407 calendar days, from filing on 28 Jun 2022 to closure on 9 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-00240?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. John Andrew Rubino, Justin Kurt Truelove and Michael Mondelli III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Lonestar Biometrics. Melissa Richards Smith appears for defendant Samsung Electronics.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-00240 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.