Book a demo

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

Try now
RFC Lenders of Texas v. United Supermarkets | Patent Lawsuit 4:22-cv-00303

RFC Lenders of Texas, LLC v. United Supermarkets, LLC

4:22-cv-00303 E.D. Tex. Closed US7430471B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 11 Apr 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 6 Jan 2023, with US7430471B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7430471B2
Application no.
US11/257122
Case no.
4:22-cv-00303
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Amos L. Mazzant
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
11 Apr 2022 – 6 Jan 2023
Duration
270 days
Basis of termination
Consent Judgment
Products & marks
Method and system for monitoring a vehicle
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 4:22-cv-00303, United States District Court for the Eastern 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
US7430471B2 Inactive App. US11/257122

Method and system for monitoring a vehicle

A method for monitoring a vehicle includes detecting movement or activation of the vehicle, transmitting a signal indicating movement or activation of the vehicle, to a control center, transmitting any received operator identification information to the control center, and determining whether an operator identification was received within a time interval of the detected movement or activation of the vehicle.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
30 Sep 2008
Earliest priority
25 Oct 2004
Est. expiry
25 Oct 2025
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G08B5/22G01C21/26G06F17/00B60R25/10
Prosecution counsel
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Examiner
NGUYEN, TAN Q
US7430471B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7430471B2 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

“Before the Court is the Stipulation of Dismissal filed by the Plaintiff and Defendant in this case. The Court finds that the Stipulation should be accepted by the Court. It is therefore ORDERED that all claims asserted in this suit are hereby dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, and all counterclaims asserted in this suit are hereby dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All relief not previously granted is hereby denied. The Clerk is directed to close this civil action. IT IS SO ORDERED”

Case 4:22-cv-00303 · E.D. Tex. · closed 6 January 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 4:22-cv-00303?

4:22-cv-00303 is a patent infringement action brought by RFC Lenders of Texas, LLC against United Supermarkets, LLC, filed on 11 Apr 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 6 January 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 4:22-cv-00303?

US7430471B2 (“Method and system for monitoring a vehicle”), assigned to RFC LENDERS OF TEXAS, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Method and system for monitoring a vehicle.

How was case 4:22-cv-00303 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Stipulation of Dismissal filed by the Plaintiff and Defendant in this case. The Court finds that the Stipulation should be accepted by the Court. It is therefore ORDERED that all claims asserted in this suit are hereby dismissed WITH PREJUDICE, and all counterclaims asserted in this suit are hereby dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All relief not previously granted is hereby denied. The Clerk is directed to close this civil action. IT IS SO ORDERED”

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 4:22-cv-00303 take?

270 calendar days, from filing on 11 Apr 2022 to closure on 6 January 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:22-cv-00303?

Chief Judge Amos L. Mazzant presided. Ronald W. Burns is recorded as counsel for plaintiff RFC Lenders of Texas. James Quail and Steven Tepera appear for defendant United Supermarkets.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 4:22-cv-00303 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:22-cv-00303 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.