Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Minotaur Systems v. Stellantis | Patent Lawsuit 2:25-cv-00640

Minotaur Systems, LLC v. Stellantis

2:25-cv-00640 E.D. Tex. Closed US9652023B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 16 Jun 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 3 Jun 2026, with US9652023B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US9652023B2
Application no.
US12/508789
Case no.
2:25-cv-00640
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
16 Jun 2025 – 3 Jun 2026
Duration
352 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Power management system
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:25-cv-00640, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US9652023B2 Active App. US12/508789

Power management system

A vehicle communication system facilitates hands-free interaction with a mobile device in a vehicle or elsewhere. Users interact with the system by speaking to it. The system processes text and processes commands. The system supports wireless technology for hands-free use. The system handles telephone calls, email, and SMS text messages. The user can customize the device via a user profile stored on an Internet web server. The system also includes a plurality of power conservation features.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
16 May 2017
Earliest priority
24 Jul 2008
Est. expiry
15 Jun 2035
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F1/32H04M1/60H04W52/02H04M1/27H04M1/725H04M1/72433H04M1/72436H04M1/72484
Prosecution counsel
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
Examiner
HOLWERDA, STEPHEN
US9652023B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9652023B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (the “Notice”). (Dkt. No. 6.) In the Notice, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned case against Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Case 2:25-cv-00640 · E.D. Tex. · closed 3 June 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2:25-cv-00640?

2:25-cv-00640 is a patent infringement action brought by Minotaur Systems, LLC against Stellantis, filed on 16 Jun 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 3 June 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 2:25-cv-00640?

US9652023B2 (“Power management system”), assigned to MINOTAUR SYSTEMS LLC, currently active. The record also lists Power management system.

How was case 2:25-cv-00640 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (the “Notice”). (Dkt. No. 6.) In the Notice, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned case against Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

What does dismissal without prejudice mean?

A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.

How long did case 2:25-cv-00640 take?

352 calendar days, from filing on 16 Jun 2025 to closure on 3 June 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-00640?

Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Minotaur Systems.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:25-cv-00640 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-00640 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.