PerformancePartners, LLC v. FlashParking, Inc.
Infringement action filed 17 Feb 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 11 Oct 2023, with US7525435B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7525435B2
- Application no.
- US11/496677
- Case no.
- 6:23-cv-00130
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Kathleen Cardone
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 17 Feb 2023 – 11 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 236 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Method, apparatus, and system for securing areas of use of vehicles
- 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
Method, apparatus, and system for securing areas of use of vehicles
A method and system for securing, protecting and controlling defined areas by managing access points for entering and exiting vehicles or mobile entities, and matching entering vehicle or mobile entity identification information with exiting identification information. This may include obtaining and storing a unique onboard signature and/or physical characteristics from entering vehicles or mobile entities for matching with the identity information obtained from exiting vehicles or mobile entities. In addition a paper or electronic Ticket/Tag may be encoded with the entering identification information and issued to an agent of the entering vehicle or mobile entity for later presentation at exiting, whereby a three-way matching of exiting, entering, and Ticket/Tag information must be satisfied for the vehicle or mobile entity to be released from the controlled area.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 28 Apr 2009
- Earliest priority
- 2 Aug 2005
- Est. expiry
- 11 Mar 2027
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- RICKRODE, C. JOSEPH
- Classification
- G08B13/14
- Examiner
- LEE, BENJAMIN C
Parties of record
PerformancePartners, LLC
- Core tech
- G08B13/14
- Counsel
- Christopher A. Honea · M. Scott Fuller · Randall T. Garteiser · Rene A. Vazquez
- Firm
- Garteiser Honea PC, Garteiser Honea PLLC
FlashParking, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- David Brandon Conrad · Michael R. Ellis · Neil J. McNabnay · Ricardo Joel Bonilla · Sarika Patel
- Firm
- Fish & Richardson PC, Fish & Richardson, PC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Christopher A. Honea | PerformancePartners, LLC | Plaintiff |
| M. Scott Fuller | PerformancePartners, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Randall T. Garteiser | PerformancePartners, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Rene A. Vazquez | PerformancePartners, LLC | Plaintiff |
| David Brandon Conrad | FlashParking, Inc. | Defendant |
| Michael R. Ellis | FlashParking, Inc. | Defendant |
| Neil J. McNabnay | FlashParking, Inc. | Defendant |
| Ricardo Joel Bonilla | FlashParking, Inc. | Defendant |
| Sarika Patel | FlashParking, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“In accordance with the Order the Court signed on October 11, 2023, the Court enters its Final Judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, as follows: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s counterclaims are DISMISSED as moot.”
Case 6:23-cv-00130 · W.D. Tex. · closed 11 October 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 6:23-cv-00130?
6:23-cv-00130 is a patent infringement action brought by PerformancePartners, LLC against FlashParking, Inc., filed on 17 Feb 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 11 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00130?
US7525435B2 (“Method, apparatus, and system for securing areas of use of vehicles”), assigned to PERFORMANCEPARTNERS LLC, currently active. The record also lists Method, apparatus, and system for securing areas of use of vehicles.
How was case 6:23-cv-00130 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “In accordance with the Order the Court signed on October 11, 2023, the Court enters its Final Judgment, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, as follows: IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s counterclaims are DISMISSED as moot.”
How long did case 6:23-cv-00130 take?
236 calendar days, from filing on 17 Feb 2023 to closure on 11 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00130?
Chief Judge Kathleen Cardone presided. Christopher A. Honea, M. Scott Fuller, Randall T. Garteiser and Rene A. Vazquez are recorded as counsel for plaintiff PerformancePartners. David Brandon Conrad, Michael R. Ellis, Neil J. McNabnay, Ricardo Joel Bonilla and Sarika Patel appear for defendant FlashParking.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00130 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.