Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
PanoVision v. Styldod | Patent Lawsuit 1:26-cv-00263

PanoVision LLC v. Styldod, Inc.

1:26-cv-00263 D. Del. Closed US8108267B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 11 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 19 May 2026, with US8108267B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8108267B2
Application no.
US12/251869
Case no.
1:26-cv-00263
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Chief judge
Colm F. Connolly
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
11 Mar 2026 – 19 May 2026
Duration
69 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:26-cv-00263, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8108267B2 Active App. US12/251869

Method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service

The method enables a user to see how a selected product or how a plurality of selected products look in an immersive three-dimensional scene that resembles an actual or real property to be constructed or updated, or the relevant portions thereof. Since the images of the scene are displayed immersively, the user can view the scene from any vantage point and at any angle just as if the user were walking around the actual property. The user can thus obtain a realistic impression of how the new or changed property will look and the approximate cost of the improvement without first constructing a new structure or implementing changes to an existing structure. This enables the user to view many different possible options in order to decide which option is most desired. The user can feel confident that corresponding changes made to the real property be pleasing to the user.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
31 Jan 2012
Est. expiry
15 Oct 2028
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Inventors
VARON, ELI
Classification
G06Q30/00
Prosecution counsel
LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP
Examiner
HAQ, NAEEM
US8108267B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8108267B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Brian E. LutnessPanoVision LLCPlaintiff
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff PanoVision LLC pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby dismisses with prejudice all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant Styldod, Inc. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No party has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action.”

Case 1:26-cv-00263 · D. Del. · closed 19 May 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:26-cv-00263?

1:26-cv-00263 is a patent infringement action brought by PanoVision LLC against Styldod, Inc., filed on 11 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 19 May 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 1:26-cv-00263?

US8108267B2 (“Method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service”), assigned to PANOVISION LLC, currently active. The record also lists Method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service.

How was case 1:26-cv-00263 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff PanoVision LLC pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby dismisses with prejudice all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant Styldod, Inc. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No party has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action.”

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 1:26-cv-00263 take?

69 calendar days, from filing on 11 Mar 2026 to closure on 19 May 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:26-cv-00263?

Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly presided. Brian E. Lutness is recorded as counsel for plaintiff PanoVision.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:26-cv-00263 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:26-cv-00263 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.