Multimodal LLC v. Fortune Brands Innovations, Inc.
Infringement action filed 29 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and closed 29 Aug 2023, with US7045763B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7045763B2
- Application no.
- US10/186458
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-02509
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Pa.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Pennsylvania
- Chief judge
- Mia Roberts Perez
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 29 Jun 2023 – 29 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 61 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Object-recognition lock
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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
Object-recognition lock
An object-recognition lock and method for operation thereof. According to one embodiment, the object-recognition lock comprises a scanner, the scanner generating at least one image signal indicative of a surface texture of an object. A controller is communicatively coupled to the scanner, the controller determining the surface texture from the at least one image signal, the controller comparing the surface texture of the object with a reference texture. A lock assembly is communicatively coupled to the controller, the lock assembly operable between a closed position and an open position by the controller when the surface texture of the object matches the reference texture.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 16 May 2006
- Est. expiry
- 16 Sep 2023
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BALLARD, CURTIS C.
- Classification
- G06K9/00G06F7/04E05B49/00G06T7/00G07C9/00
- Prosecution counsel
- HP Inc.
- Examiner
- ALLEN, STEPHONE B.
Parties of record
Multimodal LLC
- Core tech
- G06K9/00G06F7/04E05B49/00G06T7/00
- Counsel
- Antranig Garibian
- Firm
- Garibian Law Offices, PC
Fortune Brands Innovations, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Antranig Garibian | Multimodal LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plaintiff and Defendant have resolved Plaintiff’s individual claims. The parties request that the Court enter a conditional dismissal order pursuant to Local Rule 41.1(b) pending full performance of the settlement terms.”
Case 2:23-cv-02509 · E.D. Pa. · closed 29 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 2:23-cv-02509?
2:23-cv-02509 is a patent infringement action brought by Multimodal LLC against Fortune Brands Innovations, Inc., filed on 29 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case closed on 29 August 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-02509?
US7045763B2 (“Object-recognition lock”), assigned to MULTIMODAL LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Object-recognition lock.
How was case 2:23-cv-02509 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plaintiff and Defendant have resolved Plaintiff’s individual claims. The parties request that the Court enter a conditional dismissal order pursuant to Local Rule 41.1(b) pending full performance of the settlement terms.”
What does voluntary dismissal mean?
A voluntary dismissal is one the plaintiff asks for rather than one the court imposes. Where both sides stipulate to it, it commonly signals a settlement that is not filed on the public docket.
How long did case 2:23-cv-02509 take?
61 calendar days, from filing on 29 Jun 2023 to closure on 29 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-02509?
Chief Judge Mia Roberts Perez presided. Antranig Garibian is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Multimodal.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-02509 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.