Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
Infringement action filed 16 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 2 Jun 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9645663B2US9395917B2
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-00475
- 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 Dec 2022 – 2 Jun 2023
- Duration
- 168 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Electronic display with a virtual bezel
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
Electronic display with a virtual bezel
An electronic device with a touchscreen display is provided comprising an active touchscreen region and a virtual bezel area, the active touchscreen region functioning to process a first set of touch-based inputs from a user of the electronic device according to a first mode of operation, and the virtual bezel area functioning to process a second set of touch-based inputs from a user of the electronic device according to a second mode of operation.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 9 May 2017
- Earliest priority
- 24 Mar 2013
- Est. expiry
- 24 Mar 2034
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MAVRODY, SERGEY
- Classification
- G06F3/041G06F3/0488G06F1/16G06F3/01
- Prosecution counsel
- Devlin Law Firm
- Examiner
- NGUYEN, KEVIN
Electronic display with a virtual bezel
An electronic device with a touchscreen display is provided comprising an active touchscreen region and a virtual bezel area, the active touchscreen region functioning to process a first set of touch-based inputs from a user of the electronic device according to a first mode of operation, and the virtual bezel area functioning to process a second set of touch-based inputs from a user of the electronic device according to a second mode of operation.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 19 Jul 2016
- Earliest priority
- 24 Mar 2013
- Est. expiry
- 12 Oct 2034
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MAVRODY, SERGEY
- Classification
- G06F15/00G06F1/16G06F13/00G06F3/0488
- Prosecution counsel
- TOLER LAW GROUP
- Examiner
- NGUYEN, KEVIN
Parties of record
Onscreen Dynamics, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F3/041G06F3/0488G06F1/16G06F3/01
- Counsel
- Cortney Alexander
- Firm
- Kent & Risley LLC (Alpharett)
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Patrick A. Lujin
- Firm
- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP (Kansas City MO)
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Cortney Alexander | Onscreen Dynamics, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Patrick A. Lujin | Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Stipulation”) made pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and filed by Plaintiff Onscreen Dynamics, LLC and Defendant Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Dkt. No. 9.) In the Stipulation, the parties stipulate to dismiss all claims with prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant 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 2:22-cv-00475 · E.D. Tex. · closed 2 June 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 2:22-cv-00475?
2:22-cv-00475 is a patent infringement action brought by Onscreen Dynamics, LLC against Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., filed on 16 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 2 June 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:22-cv-00475?
US9645663B2 (“Electronic display with a virtual bezel”), assigned to ONSCREEN DYNAMICS, LLC, currently active; US9395917B2 (“Electronic display with a virtual bezel”), assigned to ONSCREEN DYNAMICS, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Electronic display with a virtual bezel.
How was case 2:22-cv-00475 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Stipulation”) made pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and filed by Plaintiff Onscreen Dynamics, LLC and Defendant Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (Dkt. No. 9.) In the Stipulation, the parties stipulate to dismiss all claims with prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pendi
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 2:22-cv-00475 take?
168 calendar days, from filing on 16 Dec 2022 to closure on 2 June 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-00475?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Cortney Alexander is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Onscreen Dynamics. Patrick A. Lujin appears for defendant Nissan Motor.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-00475 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.