Coding Technologies, LLC v. Copart, Inc.

1:17-cv-23708 S.D. Fla. Closed US8540159B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 11 Oct 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and closed 19 Dec 2017, with US8540159B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8540159B2
Application no.
US13/560911
Case no.
1:17-cv-23708
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
S.D. Fla.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Florida
Judge
Robert N. Scola Jr
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
11 Oct 2017 – 19 Dec 2017
Duration
69 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
QR code products and services
Validity challenges
2 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:17-cv-23708, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8540159B2 Inactive App. US13/560911

Method for providing mobile service using code-pattern

CODING TECHNOLOGIES LLC

A method and apparatus for providing a mobile service with the use of a code pattern is disclosed In one embodiment, the method comprising: taking a photograph of a code pattern image, decoding the photographed code pattern image so as to obtain code information, extracting uniform resource locator (URL) information corresponding to the code information, transmitting a content information request message to a service provider server corresponding to the URL information, and receiving content information corresponding to the URL information from the service provider server. According to embodiments of the present invention, it is possible to provide various and convenient mobile services to mobile terminal users using a mobile terminal, having a camera, and a code pattern containing the URL information.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
24 Sep 2013
Earliest priority
7 Mar 2003
Est. expiry
8 Mar 2024
Validity challenges
2 on recordIPR2018-00858 · filed by RPX CORPORATIONIPR2018-00857 · filed by RPX CORPORATION
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06K7/10G06F17/30H04L29/06H04L29/08H04M1/72445
Prosecution counsel
PATENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
US8540159B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US8540159B2, from the published patent document
US8540159B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US8540159B2, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report in Eureka
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Alberto Tomas MontequinCoding Technologies, LLCPlaintiff
Eleanor Trotman BarnettCopart, Inc.Defendant
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

Case 1:17-cv-23708 · S.D. Fla. · closed 19 December 2017
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

Who else has this plaintiff sued? Every case naming Coding Technologies, with the patent, court and outcome for each Could my product read on this patent? Claim-by-claim comparison against your own design What else is litigated in this field? The dispute map for data recognition & presentation
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:17-cv-23708?

1:17-cv-23708 is a patent infringement action brought by Coding Technologies, LLC against Copart, Inc., filed on 11 Oct 2017 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case closed on 19 December 2017.

Which patent was asserted in 1:17-cv-23708?

US8540159B2 (“Method for providing mobile service using code-pattern”), assigned to CODING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists QR code products and services.

What does voluntary dismissal mean?

A voluntary dismissal is one the plaintiff asks for rather than one the court imposes. Where both sides stipulate to it, it commonly signals a settlement that is not filed on the public docket.

How long did case 1:17-cv-23708 take?

69 calendar days, from filing on 11 Oct 2017 to closure on 19 December 2017.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:17-cv-23708?

Judge Robert N. Scola Jr presided. Alberto Tomas Montequin is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Coding Technologies. Eleanor Trotman Barnett appears for defendant Copart.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:17-cv-23708 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question
Next step

Go further with this record

Read how the method works, run it on your own product, then size the next step.

  • 01 / How-toUsing patent search for competitive intelligenceRead a rival's filings to see where its products are going.GuideRead
  • 02 / AI agentFTO ReportCheck whether your own product could read on these claims.Patsnap EurekaRun it
  • 03 / Free toolAI prior art searchDescribe an idea, get the closest patents.AI resultTry tool

More next stepsHow to run a freedom-to-operate analysis

Browse related dockets
Cases in S.D. Fla. Cases on data recognition & presentation All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:17-cv-23708 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

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.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Patent figures. Any patent drawings shown are reproduced from the identified patent publications to illustrate the cited documents, and do not establish the scope, validity or enforceability of any patent.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.