OrderMagic LLC v. Order.com, LLC
Infringement action filed 4 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and closed 26 May 2026, with US7831475B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7831475B2
- Application no.
- US11/757998
- Case no.
- 1:26-cv-01774
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D.N.Y.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New York
- Chief judge
- Paul A. Engelmayer
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 4 Mar 2026 – 26 May 2026
- Duration
- 83 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Remote ordering system
- 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
Remote ordering system
A remote ordering system is provided using an electronic menu having a series of input devices corresponding to various menu items aligned with the input devices, and a wireless transmitter to send selected menu items to a receiving device for processing. A display to show selected menu items, an alpha-numeric keyboard, a non-cash payment device, and a printer for receipts are also contemplated for increased functionality.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 9 Nov 2010
- Earliest priority
- 29 Nov 2006
- Est. expiry
- 12 Jun 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Classification
- G06Q20/00
- Prosecution counsel
- FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
- Examiner
- FRENEL, VANEL
Parties of record
OrderMagic LLC
- Core tech
- G06Q20/00
- Counsel
- Isaac Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
Order.com, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Rabicoff | OrderMagic LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment.”
Case 1:26-cv-01774 · S.D.N.Y. · closed 26 May 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 1:26-cv-01774?
1:26-cv-01774 is a patent infringement action brought by OrderMagic LLC against Order.com, LLC, filed on 4 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case closed on 26 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:26-cv-01774?
US7831475B2 (“Remote ordering system”), assigned to ORDERMAGIC LLC, currently active. The record also lists Remote ordering system.
How was case 1:26-cv-01774 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment.”
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 1:26-cv-01774 take?
83 calendar days, from filing on 4 Mar 2026 to closure on 26 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:26-cv-01774?
Chief Judge Paul A. Engelmayer presided. Isaac Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff OrderMagic.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:26-cv-01774 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.