Scanning Technologies Innovations v. Boomset: Consent Judgment in 132 Days
Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Boomset, Inc. in the Southern District of New York, asserting US9934528B2 covering systems and methods for indicating accessible information pertaining to articles of commerce. The case resolved by consent judgment within 132 days, with each party bearing its own fees and costs.
Swift Consent Judgment Ends SDNY Commerce-Tech Patent Dispute
On January 11, 2023, Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Boomset, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:23-cv-00248), presided over by Judge Colleen McMahon. The asserted patent, US9934528B2, covers systems and methods for indicating the existence of accessible information pertaining to articles of commerce — a technology domain relevant to event management, ticketing, and product-information retrieval platforms.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order states that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Scanning Technologies Innovations and Boomset stipulated to dismissal of all claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. The specific substantive terms underlying the resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on May 23, 2023 — just 132 days after filing — suggesting the parties reached an agreed resolution relatively early in the litigation lifecycle, likely before substantial discovery or motion practice. What drove the resolution, and whether any ongoing commercial arrangements were part of the agreement, is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 132 days
132 days — faster than the typical SDNY patent case median
US9934528B2 — Commerce Article Information Retrieval Systems
Any company developing or operating systems that link physical articles — including event badges, product tags, QR codes, or NFC identifiers — to accessible digital information should assess their freedom-to-operate position against US9934528B2. The patent has been actively asserted in federal court, and the consent judgment in this case does not limit its enforceability against third parties. Event-management platforms, retail-information systems, and barcode/QR-code solution providers are particularly exposed.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation recorded on the docket reflects an agreement by both parties to dismiss all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The with-prejudice designation forecloses re-litigation of these specific claims between these parties, while the mutual cost-bearing provision indicates neither party extracted a financial costs award from the other. The specific substantive terms of the parties' agreement, if any, are not disclosed in the available record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment on agreed terms
A consent judgment is not merely a dismissal — it is a formal judgment entered by the court reflecting terms the parties have agreed upon, giving it the force of a court order. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order reflects a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs. The specific terms underlying the consent judgment are not disclosed in the available record.
Court-entered agreed judgmentScanning Technologies secures a court-entered resolution with prejudice
For Scanning Technologies Innovations, the consent judgment closes this action against Boomset on a with-prejudice basis, meaning Boomset cannot be sued again on the same claims in this action. Whether the resolution reflects any licensing arrangement or other commercial terms is not disclosed in the available record. The patent US9934528B2 remains in force and could be asserted in future actions against other parties.
Patent remains enforceableBoomset exits litigation with no public admission of liability
Boomset, Inc. achieves resolution of all asserted claims with no public finding of infringement or liability. The with-prejudice dismissal means Scanning Technologies cannot revive these specific claims against Boomset in a future action. Each party bearing its own costs suggests neither side extracted a costs award from the other. The specific terms of any agreement between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
No liability finding on recordUS9934528B2 remains a live enforcement risk for commerce-information platforms
The consent judgment disposes of this action but does not invalidate or limit US9934528B2. Platforms operating in event management, ticketing, or product-information retrieval that implement systems for surfacing accessible information tied to articles of commerce should assess their exposure. The rapid resolution may signal that Scanning Technologies pursues early settlement strategies, which is relevant intelligence for other potential defendants in this technology space.
Ongoing FTO risk in sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Boomset, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jay B. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kizzia & Johnson PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Colleen McMahon | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the commerce-information scanning technology space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Scanning Technologies v. Boomset dispute — relevant to event-tech, retail, and commerce-data platform teams.
Scanning Technologies' assertion portfolio beyond US9934528B2
Scanning Technologies Innovations has demonstrated willingness to file in federal court over commerce-article information patents. Mapping their full patent portfolio — including continuation applications, divisionals, and related filings around application US15/267594 — may reveal additional patents that could be deployed against event-tech or retail-platform operators. Portfolio monitoring is advisable for companies in this space.
Portfolio monitoring signalFiling trends in accessible-information-linking and badge-scanning systems
Patent filing activity around systems that link physical identifiers — barcodes, QR codes, NFC tags, event badges — to accessible digital information layers has grown alongside the event-tech and smart-retail sectors. Understanding the density and ownership of patent families in this space helps product teams identify freedom-to-operate risks and white-space innovation opportunities before they develop into litigation exposure.
Filing trend: commerce-info linkingBoomset's patent posture in the event-management technology sector
Boomset operates in event registration, badge scanning, and attendee-management technology. Assessing Boomset's own patent filings — and the broader IP posture of competitors in the event-management platform space — provides context on how defensively the sector is patenting core scanning and information-retrieval features relevant to the asserted claims in this dispute.
Event-tech defensive patentingDesign-around opportunities in commerce-article information indication systems
The claims of US9934528B2 focus on indicating the existence of accessible information pertaining to articles of commerce. Adjacent technical approaches — such as server-push notification architectures, machine-learning-driven information surfacing, or blockchain-anchored product provenance systems — may represent areas where innovation can proceed with reduced overlap against the asserted patent's claim scope, pending a detailed FTO analysis.
Design-around white spaceSimilar patent cases: commerce-information systems in SDNY and federal courts
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting commerce-article information retrieval and scanning technology patents in the Southern District of New York and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the commerce-information systems IP landscape
A 132-day consent judgment in SDNY over a commerce-article information patent warrants attention from event-tech and retail-platform IP teams.
US9934528B2 survives this action — FTO review is warranted for platform operators
The consent judgment does not result in invalidation of US9934528B2. Any platform that surfaces accessible product or event information linked to articles of commerce should conduct a freedom-to-operate review against this patent. The SDNY filing and rapid resolution suggest an active assertion strategy by Scanning Technologies Innovations.
Early resolution pattern suggests pre-litigation monitoring is the best defence
The case closed in 132 days — before most SDNY patent cases reach claim construction. This timeline is consistent with early-stage settlement pressure. Companies in the event-management and commerce-information sector should monitor Scanning Technologies Innovations' filing activity to anticipate demand letters before litigation is initiated.
Scanning v Boomset — key questions answered
The case was terminated by consent judgment. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order reflects a stipulated dismissal of all claims with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own attorney's fees, costs, and expenses. The specific terms of any underlying agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Scanning Technologies Innovations asserted US9934528B2 (application number US15/267594), which covers systems and methods for indicating the existence of accessible information pertaining to articles of commerce. The patent was asserted in its granted form in the Southern District of New York.
The case was filed on January 11, 2023 and closed on May 23, 2023 — a duration of 132 days. This is a relatively fast resolution for a patent infringement case in the Southern District of New York, suggesting the parties reached agreement early in the litigation, likely before substantial discovery or motion practice.
No. The consent judgment disposes of this specific action between Scanning Technologies Innovations and Boomset but does not result in any invalidity finding or claim limitation with respect to US9934528B2. The patent remains in force and can be asserted against other parties in future actions.
A with-prejudice dismissal means Scanning Technologies Innovations cannot re-file the same claims against Boomset in a future action. Boomset exits the litigation with no public finding of infringement or liability. However, the with-prejudice bar applies only to Boomset — it does not restrict Scanning Technologies from asserting US9934528B2 against other defendants.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.