Opex, Corp. v. Invata, LLC et al.
Infringement action filed 21 Dec 2021 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and closed 6 Apr 2026, with 7 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Case no.
- 2:21-cv-05575
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Pa.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Pennsylvania
- Chief judge
- John F Murphy
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 21 Dec 2021 – 6 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 1567 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Omnisort system and its associated vehicles, associated control software, and component parts
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
Material handling apparatus for delivering or retrieving items
A method and apparatus are provided for sorting or retrieving items to/from a plurality of destinations areas. The items are loaded onto one of a plurality of independently controlled delivery vehicles. The delivery vehicles follow a track that guides the delivery vehicles to/from the destination areas, which are positioned along the track. Once at the appropriate destination area, an item is transferred between the delivery vehicle and the destination area.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 3 Mar 2020
- Earliest priority
- 12 Jan 2007
- Est. expiry
- 14 Jan 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HAYDUCHOK, GEORGE · DEWITT, ROBERT R.
- Classification
- B07C7/02B07C3/08B65G1/04B61C11/04B61B13/02B65G1/06B65G67/02B07C7/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Opex Corporation
- Examiner
- BIDWELL, JAMES R
Material handling apparatus for delivering or retrieving items
A method and apparatus are provided for sorting or retrieving items to/from a plurality of destinations areas. The items are loaded onto one of a plurality of independently controlled delivery vehicles. The delivery vehicles follow a track that guides the delivery vehicles to/from the destination areas, which are positioned along the track. Once at the appropriate destination area, an item is transferred between the delivery vehicle and the destination area.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 7 Dec 2021
- Earliest priority
- 12 Jan 2007
- Est. expiry
- 14 Jan 2028
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2022-01604 · Patentability · filed by INVATA, LLC and HC ROBOTICS
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HAYDUCHOK, GEORGE · DEWITT, ROBERT R.
- Classification
- B07C3/08B07C7/00B07C7/02B61B13/02B61C11/04B65G67/02B65G1/04B65G1/06
- Prosecution counsel
- Opex Corporation
- Examiner
- BIDWELL, JAMES R
Also asserted in this case
5 moreThe docket lists 7 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 5 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US7861844B2Method and apparatus for sorting items
- US9687883B2Material handling apparatus for delivering or retrieving items
- US8276740B2Material handling apparatus for sorting or retrieving items
- US8622194B2Material handling apparatus for delivering or retrieving items
- US8104601B2Method and apparatus for delivering items to destination areas
Parties of record
Opex, Corp.
- Core tech
- B07C7/02B07C3/08B65G1/04B61C11/04
- Counsel
- David J. Shaw · Emily Newcomer · Goutam Patnaik · Michael K. Jones · Robert L. Hickok
- Firm
- Desmarais, LLP, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Troutman Pepper Locke LLP
Invata, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Philip Andrew Riley
- Firm
- Mei & Mark LLP
- Also named
- HC Robotics
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| David J. Shaw | Opex, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Emily Newcomer | Opex, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Goutam Patnaik | Opex, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Michael K. Jones | Opex, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Robert L. Hickok | Opex, Corp. | Plaintiff |
| Philip Andrew Riley | Invata, LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“AND NOW, this 6th day of April 2026, upon considering plaintiff’s joint status report and motion to lift the stay (DI 18), and notice of voluntary dismissal (DI 19), it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay (DI 18) is GRANTED and the Clerk of Court shall lift the stay. 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i); and, 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.”
Case 2:21-cv-05575 · E.D. Pa. · closed 6 April 2026
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 2:21-cv-05575?
2:21-cv-05575 is a patent infringement action brought by Opex, Corp. against Invata, LLC, filed on 21 Dec 2021 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case closed on 6 April 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 2:21-cv-05575?
US10576505B2 (“Material handling apparatus for delivering or retrieving items”), assigned to OPEX CORPORATION, currently active; US11192144B2 (“Material handling apparatus for delivering or retrieving items”), assigned to OPEX CORPORATION, currently active; US7861844B2 (“Method and apparatus for sorting items”), assigned to OPEX CORPORATION; US9687883B2 (“Material handling apparatus for delivering or retrieving items”), assigned to OPEX CORPORATION; US8276740B2 (“Material handling apparatus for sorting or retrieving items”), assigned to OPEX CORPORATION; US8622194B2 (“Material handling apparatus for delivering or retrieving items”), assigned to OPEX CORPORATION; US8104601B2 (“Method and apparatus for delivering items to destination areas”), assigned to OPEX CORPORATION. The record also lists Omnisort system and its associated vehicles, associated control software, and component parts.
How was case 2:21-cv-05575 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “AND NOW, this 6th day of April 2026, upon considering plaintiff’s joint status report and motion to lift the stay (DI 18), and notice of voluntary dismissal (DI 19), it is ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay (DI 18) is GRANTED and the Clerk of Court shall lift the stay. 2. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i); and, 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.”
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 2:21-cv-05575 take?
1567 calendar days, from filing on 21 Dec 2021 to closure on 6 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:21-cv-05575?
Chief Judge John F Murphy presided. David J. Shaw, Emily Newcomer, Goutam Patnaik, Michael K. Jones and Robert L. Hickok are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Opex. Philip Andrew Riley appears for defendant Invata.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:21-cv-05575 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.