Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Katherine K. Vidal
Patentability filed 22 Apr 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 15 Aug 2023, with US20190187808A1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US20190187808A1
- Application no.
- US16/279095
- Case no.
- 22-1717
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 22 Apr 2022 – 15 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 480 days
- Basis of termination
- Appeal Dismissed
- Products & marks
- SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MULTI-MODE COMMAND INPUT
- 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 multi-mode command input
A controlling device has a moveable touch sensitive panel positioned above a plurality of switches. When the controlling device senses an activation of at least one of the plurality of switches when caused by a movement of the touch sensitive panel resulting from an input at an input location upon the touch sensitive surface, the controlling device responds by transmitting a signal to an appliance wherein the signal is reflective of the input location upon the touch sensitive surface.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 20 Jun 2019
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HATAMBEIKI, ARSHAM · KOHANEK, JEFFREY · KEILES, PAMELA EICHLER
- Classification
- G06F3/02G06F3/0354H01H9/02H01H25/04G06F3/041G06F3/044
- Prosecution counsel
- Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Parties of record
Universal Electronics, Inc.
- Core tech
- G06F3/02G06F3/0354H01H9/02H01H25/04
- Counsel
- James J. Lukas Jr.
- Firm
- Greenberg Traurig LLP
Katherine K. Vidal
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed Deputy Solicitor
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| James J. Lukas Jr. | Universal Electronics, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed Deputy Solicitor | Katherine K. Vidal | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“AFFIRMED”
Case 22-1717 · Fed. Cir. · closed 15 August 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 22-1717?
22-1717 is a patent patentability brought by Universal Electronics, Inc. against Katherine K. Vidal, filed on 22 Apr 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 15 August 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 22-1717?
US20190187808A1 (“System and method for multi-mode command input”), assigned to UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS INC., currently inactive. The record also lists SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MULTI-MODE COMMAND INPUT.
How was case 22-1717 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: “AFFIRMED”
How long did case 22-1717 take?
480 calendar days, from filing on 22 Apr 2022 to closure on 15 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1717?
James J. Lukas Jr. is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Universal Electronics. Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed Deputy Solicitor appears for defendant Katherine K. Vidal.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1717 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.