Lyft, Inc. v. Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC
Declaratory judgement filed 17 Mar 2021 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and closed 25 Sep 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for plaintiff.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9691275B2US6847871B2US6944443B2US7007013B2US7958215B2
- Case no.
- 4:21-cv-01871
- Verdict cause
- Declaratory judgement
- Court
- N.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 17 Mar 2021 – 25 Sep 2023
- Duration
- 922 days
- Basis of termination
- Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff
- Products & marks
- Autonomous vehicle fleet · Backend Query Processing · Backend Timetable Processing · Lyft Rideshare
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
Adjusting vehicle timing in a transportation network
Methods, computer program products, and systems are presented. The methods include, for instance: obtaining passenger information of one or more passenger traveling within a transportation network; and providing one or more output based on a processing of the passenger information.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 27 Jun 2017
- Est. expiry
- 6 Nov 2035
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DANNAT, TOBIAS EPHRAIM · KUEHMICHEL, ANDREAS · SCHEIDELER, TIM · SEUL, MATTHIAS · SNELLGROVE, THOMAS ALLEN
- Classification
- G08G1/00B60K35/00
- Prosecution counsel
- FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP
- Examiner
- KAN, YURI
Continuously monitoring and correcting operational conditions in automobiles from a remote location through wireless transmissions
Continuously monitoring automobile operations, performance and operating conditions from the remote diagnostic centers through Continuous wireless transmissions so that faults may be immediately recognized and corrected or the operator warned or actions remotely initiated to limit or prevent damage or safety hazards. A plurality of sensing devices in said automobile; each device for respectively continuously sensing an operational parameter of the automobile; a wireless transmitter in the automobile for transmitting the continuously sensed parameters to a diagnostic station remote from automobile; apparatus in the diagnostic station for analyzing said parameters in order to determine defective operational conditions in the automobile; and apparatus associated eith said diagnostic station for wieless transmission of data relative to the determined defective operating conditions back to said automobile.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 25 Jan 2005
- Est. expiry
- 13 Sep 2022
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MALIK, NADEEM · WARD, CHARLES GORHAM
- Classification
- G06F7/00G06F19/00G01S19/48G06F11/273
- Prosecution counsel
- IBM Corporation
- Examiner
- JEANGLAUDE, GERTRUDE A.
Also asserted in this case
3 moreThe docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Lyft, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Clark Oberembt · Daniel David · Elizabeth Kathleen Boggs · Jeremy J. Taylor · Karan Singh Dhadialla · Katherine Anne Burgess · Lauren Jarvis Dreyer · Nicholas A. Baniel · Stephanie Kato · Syed Kamil Fareed
- Firm
- Baker Botts LLP, McDermott Will & Emery LLP
Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC
- Core tech
- G08G1/00B60K35/00G06F7/00G06F19/00
- Counsel
- Brian Herrmann · Jon A. Birmingham · Karl Regan Fink · Mary F. Fetsco · Nicole Lyn Little · Timothy Paul Maloney
- Firm
- Fitch Even Tabin & Flannery, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Clark Oberembt | Lyft, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Daniel David | Lyft, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Elizabeth Kathleen Boggs | Lyft, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jeremy J. Taylor | Lyft, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Karan Singh Dhadialla | Lyft, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Katherine Anne Burgess | Lyft, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Lauren Jarvis Dreyer | Lyft, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Nicholas A. Baniel | Lyft, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Stephanie Kato | Lyft, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Syed Kamil Fareed | Lyft, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Brian Herrmann | Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC | Defendant |
| Jon A. Birmingham | Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC | Defendant |
| Karl Regan Fink | Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC | Defendant |
| Mary F. Fetsco | Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC | Defendant |
| Nicole Lyn Little | Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC | Defendant |
| Timothy Paul Maloney | Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings signed September 25, 2023, judgment is hereby entered. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.”
Case 4:21-cv-01871 · N.D. Cal. · closed 25 September 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 4:21-cv-01871?
4:21-cv-01871 is a patent declaratory judgement brought by Lyft, Inc. against Quartz Auto Technologies, LLC, filed on 17 Mar 2021 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case closed on 25 September 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 4:21-cv-01871?
US9691275B2 (“Adjusting vehicle timing in a transportation network”), assigned to QUARTZ AUTO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, currently active; US6847871B2 (“Continuously monitoring and correcting operational conditions in automobiles from a remote location through wireless transmissions”), assigned to QUARTZ AUTO TECHNOLOGIES LLC, currently inactive; US6944443B2 (“Method, apparatus and system for notifying a user of a portable wireless device”), assigned to SLINGSHOT IOT LLC; US7007013B2 (“Fast computation of spatial queries in location-based services”), assigned to SLINGSHOT IOT LLC; US7958215B2 (“System management using real time collaboration”), assigned to QUARTZ AUTO TECHNOLOGIES LLC. The record also lists Autonomous vehicle fleet, Backend Query Processing, Backend Timetable Processing and Lyft Rideshare.
How was case 4:21-cv-01871 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for plaintiff. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings signed September 25, 2023, judgment is hereby entered. IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.”
What does judgment on the merits mean?
A judgment on the merits decides the substance of the claims, as opposed to ending the case on procedural grounds.
How long did case 4:21-cv-01871 take?
922 calendar days, from filing on 17 Mar 2021 to closure on 25 September 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:21-cv-01871?
Clark Oberembt, Daniel David, Elizabeth Kathleen Boggs, Jeremy J. Taylor, Karan Singh Dhadialla, Katherine Anne Burgess, Lauren Jarvis Dreyer, Nicholas A. Baniel, Stephanie Kato and Syed Kamil Fareed are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Lyft. Brian Herrmann, Jon A. Birmingham, Karl Regan Fink, Mary F. Fetsco, Nicole Lyn Little and Timothy Paul Maloney appear for defendant Quartz Auto Technologies.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:21-cv-01871 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.