Monument Peak Ventures v. Kyocera — Dismissed With Prejudice in 262 Days
Monument Peak Ventures, LLC brought a five-patent infringement action against Kyocera Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting digital imaging patents covering camera power management, image processing, and output device management. The case was dismissed with prejudice after 262 days, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.
Five digital imaging patents, one swift dismissal in E.D. Texas
On 27 March 2023, Monument Peak Ventures, LLC filed suit against Kyocera Corp. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00127), asserting infringement of five US patents: US7006890B2, US7187858B2, US7212668B1, US6862039B2, and US7092573B2. The asserted patents collectively cover digital camera power management, image subject emphasis processing, real-time color tone adjustment, image enhancement methods, and distributed image output device management.
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 14 December 2023, pursuant to a court order granting the relevant motion. The court's order dismissed all claims and causes of action asserted between the parties with prejudice and directed that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. All pending requests for relief not explicitly granted were denied as moot, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.
The resolution came after 262 days — without the case proceeding to trial — suggesting an early resolution consistent with a negotiated agreement between the parties, though the specific terms driving the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is notable in that neither side obtained a fee award, which is sometimes associated with contested or protracted patent disputes.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 262 days
262 days — resolved well within the typical E.D. Texas patent trial timeline
US7006890B2 and four further digital imaging patents asserted
Any company developing or commercialising digital camera systems, image processing software, camera-enabled devices, or multifunction output systems should treat this patent family as a live FTO concern. The five patents collectively cover core functions — power-aware camera operation, subject detection, real-time colour adjustment, enhancement selection, and distributed output management — that appear in a wide range of modern imaging products. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only Kyocera's exposure; all other market participants remain subject to potential assertion.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order granted the underlying motion in full and dismissed all claims and causes of action between Monument Peak Ventures and Kyocera with prejudice, directing each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The order closed the case entirely, denying all remaining relief requests as moot. No findings on the merits of infringement or patent validity are recorded in the available order text.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars re-filing these exact claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Monument Peak Ventures cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Kyocera based on the same five patents and the same accused conduct in any US federal court. The court's order extinguished all pending claims and denied all remaining relief requests as moot.
Claim preclusion appliesMonument Peak forfeits the right to re-assert these five patents against Kyocera
The dismissal with prejudice means Monument Peak Ventures gave up its ability to pursue Kyocera again on the same five digital imaging patents for the same accused products or conduct. The patents themselves remain in force against third parties, but the specific claims in this action are permanently extinguished as against Kyocera. The specific terms driving this outcome are not disclosed in the available record.
Patents survive vs. third partiesKyocera exits litigation with no fee award and no admitted liability
Kyocera secured dismissal of all claims with prejudice, eliminating the litigation risk on these five patents from this plaintiff without a recorded finding of infringement or validity. Each party bearing its own costs means Kyocera did not obtain a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, consistent with a resolution reached without a full merits adjudication. No admission of liability is recorded in the public docket.
No liability finding recordedCleared from this action — but the underlying imaging IP portfolio remains active
For companies operating in digital imaging, camera systems, or image processing, the five patents asserted here remain valid and enforceable against parties other than Kyocera. Monument Peak Ventures' portfolio in this space warrants ongoing monitoring by manufacturers, OEMs, and software developers working in camera power management, image enhancement, and distributed output management. The dismissal resolves only this specific dispute.
Portfolio risk persists for othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Monument Peak Ventures, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Kyocera, Corp. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cabrach John Connor | Attorney | Counsel for Monument Peak Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Michael Shumaker | Attorney | Counsel for Monument Peak Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC (Austin) | Law Firm | Representing Monument Peak Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jose Luis Patino | Attorney | Counsel for Kyocera, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Justin Edwin Gray | Attorney | Counsel for Kyocera, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicola Anthony Pisano | Attorney | Counsel for Kyocera, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott A. Penner | Attorney | Counsel for Kyocera, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Buchalter, A Professional Corporation | Law Firm | Representing Kyocera, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Eversheds Sutherland (US), LLP (San Diego) | Law Firm | Representing Kyocera, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in digital imaging and camera patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Monument Peak Ventures v. Kyocera — relevant to imaging hardware, camera algorithms, and output systems developers.
Monument Peak Ventures' imaging portfolio: scope and enforcement history
Monument Peak Ventures holds a portfolio of digital imaging patents that appear to span camera hardware control, image processing algorithms, and output device management. Understanding the full breadth of their active patent families helps identify which product categories and technical functions carry the highest assertion risk in this domain.
PAE portfolio mappingFiling trends in camera power management and image enhancement IP
The five asserted patents reflect early-2000s innovation in camera power optimisation, subject detection, and colour processing. Tracking current filing trends in these sub-domains — particularly for AI-driven image enhancement and adaptive power management in mobile and embedded cameras — reveals which incumbents and startups are building defensive or offensive positions in adjacent technology areas.
Imaging tech filing trendsKyocera's imaging patent position and defensive coverage gaps
Kyocera's IP activity in digital imaging, camera-enabled devices, and multifunction output systems may indicate areas where its patent portfolio provides cross-licensing leverage — or where coverage gaps exist. Assessing Kyocera's filing activity in camera systems and image processing can inform competitive IP strategy for rivals and licensing counterparties in these markets.
Kyocera imaging IP analysisAdjacent innovation opportunities near legacy imaging IP
The five patents cover functional areas — adaptive power, subject emphasis, colour tone, enhancement selection, distributed output — that are foundational but largely legacy in design. White-space analysis around these claim areas can reveal under-patented territories in modern AI-driven camera processing, real-time computational photography, and cloud-connected imaging output management that represent filing and R&D opportunities.
Imaging IP white spaceSimilar digital imaging patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving digital camera, image processing, and output device technology litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the digital imaging IP landscape
A five-patent assertion resolved in under nine months signals dynamics worth tracking for any company in the camera or image processing space.
Patent assertion entities remain active in digital imaging at E.D. Texas
Monument Peak Ventures' filing of a five-patent action in E.D. Texas illustrates continued PAE activity targeting digital imaging and camera technology manufacturers. Companies with products involving image processing, power management, or output device management should audit exposure to legacy imaging patent portfolios, many of which originated from major OEM divestitures.
Early dismissal with prejudice signals negotiated resolution without public terms
The 262-day case lifecycle and the mutual cost-bearing provision suggest the parties reached an agreed resolution before trial or significant pre-trial expenditure. The specific terms are not in the public record. For litigation strategy teams, the speed of resolution may indicate the relative leverage of asserting a large patent portfolio versus the cost of defending one.
Monument v Kyocera — key questions answered
Monument Peak Ventures asserted five US patents: US7006890B2 (camera power management), US7187858B2 (image subject emphasis), US7212668B1 (real-time colour tone adjustment), US6862039B2 (selective image enhancement), and US7092573B2 (distributed image output device management), all filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 14 December 2023, pursuant to a court order granting the relevant motion. All claims and causes of action were dismissed with prejudice, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms driving the resolution are not disclosed in the available public record.
Dismissal with prejudice bars Monument Peak Ventures from re-filing the same infringement claims against Kyocera based on the same five patents and the same accused conduct. However, the five patents remain valid and enforceable against third parties, meaning other companies in the digital imaging and camera space remain subject to potential assertion.
The case was filed on 27 March 2023 and closed on 14 December 2023, lasting 262 days. It was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Case No. 2:23-cv-00127.
Monument Peak Ventures was represented by Cabrach John Connor and John Michael Shumaker of Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC (Austin). Kyocera was represented by Jose Luis Patino, Justin Edwin Gray, Nicola Anthony Pisano, and Scott A. Penner, with firms Buchalter and Eversheds Sutherland (US), LLP (San Diego).
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.