Safety Direct, LLC v. Alphabet, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 29 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and closed 18 Sep 2023, with US10115292B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10115292B2
- Application no.
- US15/494548
- Case no.
- 3:23-cv-03243
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- Laurel Beeler
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 29 Jun 2023 – 18 Sep 2023
- Duration
- 81 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- System and method for automatic loss prevention of mobile communication devices
- 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
System and method for automatic loss prevention of mobile communication devices
The solution is to create a device, where if the mobile device or important small item is removed beyond a user-defined distance, such as 2 meters, a visual and noise alarm will activate, thus immediately letting the owner and others know that a theft has occurred.One embodiment of the invention is a device called an Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Trigger (ALPAT) and software on a mobile device called Automatic Loss Prevention Alert Software (ALPAS).The ALPAT can be in the form of a small device that a person can keep with them and optionally secure to a keychain. The ALPAS will then keep track of whether the ALPAT is more than a user defined distance from the mobile device.If the mobile device is removed beyond a user determined distance, such as a distance of 2 m from the device, a visual and noise alarm will activate from the mobile device and possibly form the ALPAT, depending on user settings. This will immediately let the owner and others know that a theft has occurred.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 30 Oct 2018
- Earliest priority
- 19 May 2016
- Est. expiry
- 24 Apr 2037
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ABRAMSON, RICHARD
- Classification
- G08B21/24G06F1/16G06F21/88G06F21/74G08B21/02
- Prosecution counsel
- Murthy Patent Law Inc.
- Examiner
- BOUSONO, ORLANDO
Parties of record
Safety Direct, LLC
- Core tech
- G08B21/24G06F1/16G06F21/88G06F21/74
- Counsel
- Karthik Krishna Murthy
- Firm
- Murthy Patent Law Inc.
Alphabet, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
- Also named
- Google, LLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Karthik Krishna Murthy | Safety Direct, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff, Safety Direct LLC, and Defendants, Alphabet, Inc. and Google LLC, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of the action. All claims of infringement that Plaintiff raised or could have raised in this action are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. All claims, defenses, or counterclaims that Defendant raised are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each Party will bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 3:23-cv-03243 · N.D. Cal. · closed 18 September 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 3:23-cv-03243?
3:23-cv-03243 is a patent infringement action brought by Safety Direct, LLC against Alphabet, Inc., filed on 29 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case closed on 18 September 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 3:23-cv-03243?
US10115292B2 (“System and method for automatic loss prevention of mobile communication devices”), assigned to SAFETY DIRECT LLC, currently active. The record also lists System and method for automatic loss prevention of mobile communication devices.
How was case 3:23-cv-03243 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff, Safety Direct LLC, and Defendants, Alphabet, Inc. and Google LLC, hereby stipulate to the dismissal of the action. All claims of infringement that Plaintiff raised or could have raised in this action are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. All claims, defenses, or counterclaims that Defendant raised are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each Party will bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
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 3:23-cv-03243 take?
81 calendar days, from filing on 29 Jun 2023 to closure on 18 September 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:23-cv-03243?
Chief Judge Laurel Beeler presided. Karthik Krishna Murthy is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Safety Direct.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:23-cv-03243 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.