Rail Assets, LLC v. Norfolk Southern, Corp.
Infringement action filed 7 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and closed 30 Mar 2023, with US6088635A asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6088635A
- Application no.
- US09/261937
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-04431
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Ga.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Georgia
- Chief judge
- Sarah E. Geraghty
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 7 Nov 2022 – 30 Mar 2023
- Duration
- 143 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Railroad vehicle accident video recorder
- 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
Railroad vehicle accident video recorder
A method and monitoring unit for recording the status of a railroad vehicle prior to a potential accident. In a monitoring unit mounted in or on a railroad vehicle, such as a locomotive, a video camera is provided to continuously view a scene that the railroad vehicle approaches. The monitoring unit continuously monitors the status of an emergency brake of the railroad vehicle and the status of a horn of the railroad vehicle. Video signals from the video camera are continuously stored. A control unit in the monitoring unit detects the application of both the emergency brake and blast of the horn within a predetermined time window. Video signals from the video camera are captured for a predetermined period of time after detecting that the application of the emergency brake and horn blast within the predetermined time window.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 11 Jul 2000
- Est. expiry
- 3 Mar 2019
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- COX, TODD · AMET, CHRIS · MCDOUGALD, MARK · KNIGHT, DUANE A. · YUEN, CHEUK NAM
- Classification
- B61L23/00B61L23/04B61L3/00B61L29/00B61L29/24
- Prosecution counsel
- CR MILES, P.C.
- Examiner
- CUCHLINSKI, JR., WILLIAM A.
Parties of record
Rail Assets, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jacqueline Knapp Burt · Steven W. Ritcheson
- Firm
- Insight PLC, Insight PLC (CA)
Norfolk Southern, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Daniel Huynh · Daniel Yannuzzi · Donald William Geiger Jr. · Rena Andoh
- Firm
- Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton- SD CA
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jacqueline Knapp Burt | Rail Assets, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Steven W. Ritcheson | Rail Assets, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Daniel Huynh | Norfolk Southern, Corp. | Defendant |
| Daniel Yannuzzi | Norfolk Southern, Corp. | Defendant |
| Donald William Geiger Jr. | Norfolk Southern, Corp. | Defendant |
| Rena Andoh | Norfolk Southern, Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of its complaint against Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). According to Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses its complaint against Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).”
Case 1:22-cv-04431 · N.D. Ga. · closed 30 March 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 1:22-cv-04431?
1:22-cv-04431 is a patent infringement action brought by Rail Assets, LLC against Norfolk Southern, Corp., filed on 7 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The case closed on 30 March 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-04431?
US6088635A (“Railroad vehicle accident video recorder”), assigned to ROADTRAC, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Railroad vehicle accident video recorder.
How was case 1:22-cv-04431 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of its complaint against Defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). According to Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses its complaint against Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).”
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 1:22-cv-04431 take?
143 calendar days, from filing on 7 Nov 2022 to closure on 30 March 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-04431?
Chief Judge Sarah E. Geraghty presided. Jacqueline Knapp Burt and Steven W. Ritcheson are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Rail Assets. Daniel Huynh, Daniel Yannuzzi, Donald William Geiger Jr. and Rena Andoh appear for defendant Norfolk Southern.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-04431 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.