Infringement action filed 26 Nov 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 15 May 2026, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
An improved system and method for defining an event based upon an object location and a user-defined zone and managing the conveyance of object location event information among computing devices where object location events are defined in terms of a condition based upon a relationship between user-defined zone information and object location information. One or more location information sources are associated with an object to provide the object location information. One or more user-defined zones are defined on a map and one or more object location events are defined. The occurrence of an object location event produces object location event information that is conveyed to users based on user identification codes. Accessibility to object location information, zone information, and object location event information is based upon an object location information access code, a zone information access code, and an object location event information access code, respectively.
An improved system and method for defining an event based upon an object location and a user-defined zone and managing the conveyance of object location event information among computing devices where object location events are defined in terms of a condition based upon a relationship between user-defined zone information and object location information. One or more location information sources are associated with an object to provide the object location information. One or more user-defined zones are defined on a map and one or more object location events are defined. The occurrence of an object location event produces object location event information that is conveyed to users based on user identification codes. Accessibility to object location information, zone information, and object location event information is based upon an object location information access code, a zone information access code, and an object location event information access code, respectively.
The docket lists 6 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 4 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
25-1215 is a patent infringement action brought by Perdiem Co., LLC against Nextraq, LLC, filed on 26 Nov 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 15 May 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 25-1215?
US10602364B2 (“Method for conveyance of event information to individuals interested devices having phone numbers”), assigned to PERDIEMCO LLC, currently inactive; US10284662B1 (“Electronic logging device (ELD) for tracking driver of a vehicle in different tracking modes”), assigned to PERDIEMCO LLC, currently inactive; US10382966B2 (“Computing device carried by a vehicle for tracking driving events in a zone using location and event log files”), assigned to PERDIEMCO LLC; US10397789B2 (“Method for controlling conveyance of event information about carriers of mobile devices based on location information received from location information sources used by the mobile devices”), assigned to PERDIEMCO LLC; US10277689B1 (“Method for controlling conveyance of events by driver administrator of vehicles equipped with ELDs”), assigned to PERDIEMCO LLC; US11716595B1 (“Method for conveying event information based on roles assigned to users of a location tracking service”), assigned to PERDIEMCO LLC. The record also lists NexTraq offers tracking products and services.
How was case 25-1215 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: "THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36."
How long did case 25-1215 take?
535 calendar days, from filing on 26 Nov 2024 to closure on 15 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 25-1215?
Benjamin Cappel At, Charles A. Pannell III and Meredith Leigh Martin Addy are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Perdiem. John D. Murnane and Justin J. Oliver appear for defendant Nextraq.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 25-1215 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 25-1215 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.
Patsnap Eureka
Eureka AI Agent
Help us improve
Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.
