Virtuo-Convert v. Ultraleap: Gesture Control Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
Virtuo-Convert LLC filed suit against Ultraleap Limited in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US10372223B2, covering methods for providing user commands via gesture-based input to electronic processors. The case closed in just 75 days when Virtuo-Convert voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41, before Ultraleap filed any answer.
Early voluntary exit: Virtuo-Convert ends gesture IP suit before Ultraleap responds
On October 1, 2025, Virtuo-Convert LLC initiated a patent infringement action against Ultraleap Limited in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00996), assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The asserted patent, US10372223B2, covers a method for providing user commands to an electronic processor — a foundational claim in the gesture-recognition and mid-air interaction space where Ultraleap operates as a leading commercial player.
The case closed on December 15, 2025, just 75 days after filing. Virtuo-Convert filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss unilaterally before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. The court acknowledged and accepted the dismissal with prejudice, meaning Virtuo-Convert is permanently barred from reasserting these specific claims against Ultraleap on this patent.
The 75-day resolution — before any substantive litigation activity by the defendant — is consistent with patterns seen in early-stage NPE actions where pre-suit licensing negotiations, patent validity concerns, or resource constraints prompt early withdrawal. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement, license, or consideration was exchanged. The with-prejudice designation is the legally significant detail: unlike a dismissal without prejudice, this forecloses re-litigation of the same claims against Ultraleap.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 75 days
75 days — resolved before defendant answered; well below median EDTX patent case duration
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 finality means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) enables plaintiff-only, pre-answer exit
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss without a court order if the defendant has not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. Here, Virtuo-Convert exercised this right — but crucially elected dismissal with prejudice, which converts what would ordinarily be a flexible procedural tool into a final, claim-preclusive judgment on the merits. The court’s formal acknowledgment reinforces that finality.
Final — no re-filing permittedWith-prejudice dismissal permanently ends Virtuo-Convert’s claims against Ultraleap
By choosing dismissal with prejudice, Virtuo-Convert surrendered its right to relitigate these infringement claims against Ultraleap under US10372223B2. This is a materially stronger concession than a without-prejudice exit. The public record does not reveal whether any licensing fee, settlement payment, or cross-agreement was reached — those terms, if any, remain confidential and cannot be inferred from the docket alone.
Claims extinguished against UltraleapUltraleap exits without answering — and with permanent claim preclusion in its favour
Ultraleap Limited achieved a highly efficient result: the case was resolved before it was required to file an answer, incur substantial discovery costs, or mount an invalidity defence. The with-prejudice dismissal provides Ultraleap with a durable procedural shield — Virtuo-Convert cannot re-open the same infringement allegations under this patent. No costs or fees were awarded against either party.
Full defence cost avoidanceGesture-tech patent enforcement: rapid exits signal licensing-first strategies
Cases resolved before any defendant response are frequently associated with licensing-oriented assertion strategies. For mid-air interaction and gesture-recognition companies operating near US10372223B2’s claim scope, this case is a reminder that pre-litigation licensing demands can resolve quickly — but the with-prejudice outcome here ensures Ultraleap’s position under this specific patent is secured. Competitors in the space should monitor the patent’s broader assertion history.
Monitor broader assertion activityFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Virtuo-Convert LLC | Company | Non-practicing patent entity — holder of US10372223B2 covering gesture-based input methodsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ultraleap Limited | Individual | Ultraleap Limited — mid-air haptic and hand-tracking gesture technology companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Virtuo-Convert LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Virtuo-Convert LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a straightforward Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal with prejudice — the most plaintiff-restrictive form of voluntary exit. The operative legal consequence is res judicata: Virtuo-Convert is barred from reasserting identical claims against Ultraleap under this patent. The ‘each party bears its own costs’ direction is standard for pre-answer dismissals and does not signal any sanctions or exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US10372223B2 — Gesture-based user command method for electronic processors
US10372223B2 (application number US15/105564) covers a method for providing user commands to an electronic processor and related processor program and electronic circuit. The patent sits at the intersection of human-computer interaction and hardware command processing — protecting a method by which gesture or physical user inputs are translated into actionable processor commands. This positions it as potentially relevant to touchless UI, mid-air interaction systems, AR/VR input hardware, and gesture-recognition middleware.
For companies developing hand-tracking devices, gesture controllers, touchless kiosk interfaces, or AR/VR input peripherals, US10372223B2 represents a patent to monitor closely. Ultraleap’s core commercial offering — mid-air haptic and hand-tracking systems — maps directly to the claim domain. The fact that this case resolved at the pre-answer stage without public merits adjudication means the patent’s validity and enforceability remain untested, leaving the risk live for other market participants building in adjacent product categories.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10372223B2?
Any company developing or commercialising gesture-based input systems, touchless user interfaces, hand-tracking hardware, or processor-command middleware should assess freedom-to-operate against US10372223B2. The patent’s claim language — covering methods for providing user commands to an electronic processor — is broad enough to potentially capture software-defined gesture recognisers, embedded firmware in gesture controllers, and AR/VR input systems. The patent was asserted and dismissed without any claim construction or validity ruling, meaning its full enforceability scope is untested.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US10372223B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and flag continuation applications in the same family that may carry identical or broader claims. For product teams preparing to launch gesture-input or touchless UI products, running a targeted FTO now — before any demand letter arrives — is significantly more cost-effective than reactive litigation defence in the Eastern District of Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10372223B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar gesture-recognition and HCI patent cases in Eastern District of Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions asserting gesture-based input and human-computer interaction patents before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the gesture-recognition IP landscape
A 75-day with-prejudice exit in EDTX before any defence response carries distinct signals for mid-air interaction and gesture-tech IP strategy.
Pre-answer dismissals in EDTX often reflect rapid licensing resolution or NPE strategy pivots
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice before the defendant answers in the Eastern District of Texas, it typically signals either a licensing agreement was reached or the assertion was tactically withdrawn. Companies in the gesture and haptic interaction space should assess whether US10372223B2 remains an active licensing risk across their product lines beyond Ultraleap.
With-prejudice terms lock in Ultraleap’s freedom — but not the sector’s
The with-prejudice dismissal binds only the Virtuo-Convert–Ultraleap relationship on these claims. Other hand-tracking, gesture-input, or processor-command technology companies remain fully exposed to assertion under US10372223B2. R&D teams developing gesture-based UI should maintain active FTO monitoring against this patent family.
Virtuo-Convert v Ultraleap — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. Virtuo-Convert LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and Judge Gilstrap formally acknowledged and accepted the dismissal. A with-prejudice dismissal is claim-preclusive — Virtuo-Convert cannot re-assert the same infringement claims against Ultraleap under US10372223B2.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss voluntarily without a court order before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. In EDTX patent cases, this is commonly used for early exits — either following a licensing resolution or a strategic withdrawal. When the dismissal is with prejudice, as here, it carries the same legal weight as a final judgment on the merits, barring re-litigation.
Virtuo-Convert asserted US10372223B2 (application number US15/105564), which covers a method for providing user commands to an electronic processor and related processor program and electronic circuit. This patent covers gesture-based or physical input methods translated into processor-executable commands — directly relevant to Ultraleap’s mid-air hand-tracking and haptic interaction technology.
No. The court’s dismissal order specified that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This is the standard outcome for pre-answer voluntary dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and does not reflect any exceptional-case finding or sanctions under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Ultraleap avoided any fee exposure.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars Virtuo-Convert from re-suing Ultraleap under this patent. It has no binding effect on potential assertions against other companies. The patent’s validity and claim scope were never adjudicated on the merits, leaving the enforceability question open. Companies in gesture-recognition, touchless UI, AR/VR input, or processor-command middleware should conduct a freedom-to-operate review against US10372223B2.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.