Ridgeview IP, LLC v. Community Brands Intermediate, LLC
Infringement action filed 23 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 9 Feb 2023, with US8396270B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8396270B2
- Application no.
- US12/932060
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-01218
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 23 Nov 2022 – 9 Feb 2023
- Duration
- 78 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Method to estimate 3D abdominal and thoracic tumor position to submillimeter accuracy using sequential x-ray imaging and respiratory monitoring
- 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 to estimate 3D abdominal and thoracic tumor position to submillimeter accuracy using sequential x-ray imaging and respiratory monitoring
A method of estimating target motion for image guided radiotherapy (IGRT) systems is provided. The method includes acquiring by a kV imaging system sequential images of a target motion, computing by the kV imaging system from the sequential images an image-based estimation of the target motion expressed in a patient coordinate system, transforming by the kV imaging system the image-based estimation in the patient coordinate system to an estimate in a projection coordinate system, reformulating by the kV imaging system the projection coordinate system in a converging iterative form to force a convergence of the projection coordinate system to output a resolved estimation of the target motion, and displaying by the kV imaging system the resolved estimation of the target motion.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 12 Mar 2013
- Earliest priority
- 16 Feb 2010
- Est. expiry
- 5 Nov 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KEALL, PAUL J. · POULSEN, PER RUGAARD · CHO, BYUNGCHUL
- Classification
- G06K9/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Lumen Patent Firm
- Examiner
- FITZPATRICK, ATIBA O
Parties of record
Ridgeview IP, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Christopher A. Honea · M. Scott Fuller · Randall T. Garteiser · Rene A. Vazquez
- Firm
- Garteiser Honea PLLC
Community Brands Intermediate, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Steven R. Borgman
- Firm
- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Christopher A. Honea | Ridgeview IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| M. Scott Fuller | Ridgeview IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Randall T. Garteiser | Ridgeview IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Rene A. Vazquez | Ridgeview IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Steven R. Borgman | Community Brands Intermediate, LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and 41(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff Ridgeview IP LLC respectfully submits this notice of voluntary dismissal WITHOUT PREJUDICE of all claims brought by plaintiff in this action against Defendant Community Brands Intermediate LLC.”
Case 6:22-cv-01218 · W.D. Tex. · closed 9 February 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 6:22-cv-01218?
6:22-cv-01218 is a patent infringement action brought by Ridgeview IP, LLC against Community Brands Intermediate, LLC, filed on 23 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 9 February 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:22-cv-01218?
US8396270B2 (“Method to estimate 3D abdominal and thoracic tumor position to submillimeter accuracy using sequential x-ray imaging and respiratory monitoring”), assigned to BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY, THE, currently inactive. The record also lists Method to estimate 3D abdominal and thoracic tumor position to submillimeter accuracy using sequential x-ray imaging and respiratory monitoring.
How was case 6:22-cv-01218 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and 41(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff Ridgeview IP LLC respectfully submits this notice of voluntary dismissal WITHOUT PREJUDICE of all claims brought by plaintiff in this action against Defendant Community Brands Intermediate LLC.”
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 6:22-cv-01218 take?
78 calendar days, from filing on 23 Nov 2022 to closure on 9 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-01218?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Christopher A. Honea, M. Scott Fuller, Randall T. Garteiser and Rene A. Vazquez are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Ridgeview IP. Steven R. Borgman appears for defendant Community Brands Intermediate.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-01218 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.