Book a demo

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

Try now
Minotaur Systems v. Verizon Communications | Patent Lawsuit 2:23-cv-00151

Minotaur Systems, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

2:23-cv-00151 E.D. Tex. Closed 3 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 5 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 27 Jul 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
2:23-cv-00151
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
5 Apr 2023 – 27 Jul 2023
Duration
113 days
Basis of termination
Case Dismissed
Products & marks
Power management system · Roadside and emergency assistance system · Vehicle visual and non-visual data recording system
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:23-cv-00151, 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
US7386376B2 Inactive App. US10/352385

Vehicle visual and non-visual data recording system

The system described in this invention can be used for monitoring and analyzing real time visual and non-visual information pertaining to the occupant, vehicle, and surroundings prior to, during and post eccentric operating conditions for a given period of time. The system stores vehicle and occupant data from sensors throughout the vehicle and also makes use of existing vehicle sensors that may already be present in the vehicle. The invention also includes a video recording module that makes use of a fish-eye camera to capture video from the inside and the outside of the vehicle. Real-time data analysis is performed to detect and to recognize vehicle occupants, and recognize impending eccentric events. Vehicle, occupant, and video data are stored in circular buffers. When an eccentric event, a collision for example, has been detected, the device continues to record data and video for a fixed period of time. Once this time has elapsed, the data is transferred from volatile to non-volatile memory for later retrieval. A computer may be used to retrieve and display the vehicle and occupant data in a synchronization with the video data for the purposes of accident recreation, driver or vehicle monitoring.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
10 Jun 2008
Earliest priority
25 Jan 2002
Est. expiry
3 Nov 2024
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G01M17/00B62D41/00G06F7/00G07C5/08
Prosecution counsel
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
Examiner
TRAN, KHOI H.
US7386376B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7386376B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

1 more

The docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.

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

“Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that all claims and causes of action asserted by Minotaur against Verizon in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT.”

Case 2:23-cv-00151 · E.D. Tex. · closed 27 July 2023
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 2:23-cv-00151?

2:23-cv-00151 is a patent infringement action brought by Minotaur Systems, LLC against Verizon Communications, Inc., filed on 5 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 27 July 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 2:23-cv-00151?

US9652023B2 (“Power management system”), assigned to MINOTAUR SYSTEMS LLC, currently active; US7386376B2 (“Vehicle visual and non-visual data recording system”), assigned to MINOTAUR SYSTEMS LLC, currently inactive; US9237242B2 (“Roadside and emergency assistance system”), assigned to MINOTAUR SYSTEMS LLC. The record also lists Power management system, Roadside and emergency assistance system and Vehicle visual and non-visual data recording system.

How was case 2:23-cv-00151 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that all claims and causes of action asserted by Minotaur against Verizon in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT.”

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 2:23-cv-00151 take?

113 calendar days, from filing on 5 Apr 2023 to closure on 27 July 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00151?

Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. John Andrew Rubino, Justin Kurt Truelove and Michael Mondelli III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Minotaur Systems. Deron R. Dacus appears for defendant Verizon Communications.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:23-cv-00151 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00151 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.