Book a demo

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

Try now
PerformancePartners v. Parking Concepts | Patent Lawsuit 3:23-cv-01411

PerformancePartners, LLC v. Parking Concepts, Inc.

3:23-cv-01411 N.D. Tex. Closed US7525435B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 23 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and closed 26 Oct 2023, with US7525435B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7525435B2
Application no.
US11/496677
Case no.
3:23-cv-01411
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
N.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Brantley Starr
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
23 Jun 2023 – 26 Oct 2023
Duration
125 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed without Prejudice
Products & marks
Method, apparatus, and system for securing areas of use of vehicles
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 3:23-cv-01411, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 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
US7525435B2 Active App. US11/496677

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.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
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
Classification
G08B13/14
Examiner
LEE, BENJAMIN C
US7525435B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7525435B2 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

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

“Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff PerformancePartners LLC respectfully submits this notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to all Defendants. As of the time of filing of this Notice, no Defendant has served an Answer or Motion for Summary Judgment”

Case 3:23-cv-01411 · N.D. Tex. · closed 26 October 2023
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 3:23-cv-01411?

3:23-cv-01411 is a patent infringement action brought by PerformancePartners, LLC against Parking Concepts, Inc., filed on 23 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case closed on 26 October 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 3:23-cv-01411?

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 3:23-cv-01411 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff PerformancePartners LLC respectfully submits this notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to all Defendants. As of the time of filing of this Notice, no Defendant has served an Answer or Motion 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 3:23-cv-01411 take?

125 calendar days, from filing on 23 Jun 2023 to closure on 26 October 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:23-cv-01411?

Chief Judge Brantley Starr presided. Christopher A. Honea and Michael Scott Fuller are recorded as counsel for plaintiff PerformancePartners.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 3:23-cv-01411 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:23-cv-01411 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.