ImmerVision, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 8 cases

8 cases on record naming ImmerVision, Inc.: 6 as claimant, 2 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Profile this company in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

8 cases on record

Cases on record
8
As claimant
6
As respondent
2
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
G02B13/06 · H04N5/225
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
1:25-cv-00366 ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. Plaintiff D. Del. 25 Mar 2025 274 d Dismissed with Prejudice
24-2220 ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 15 Aug 2024 573 d Voluntary dismissal
1:23-cv-01012 ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. Plaintiff D. Del. 15 Sep 2023 907 d Dismissed with Prejudice
1:21-cv-01733 ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc. Plaintiff D. Del. 8 Dec 2021 986 d Dismissed with Prejudice
1:21-cv-01570 ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc. Plaintiff D. Del. 3 Nov 2021 1588 d Closed
1:21-cv-01484 ImmerVision, Inc. v. Apple Computer, Inc. Plaintiff D. Del. 22 Oct 2021 1573 d Closed
2021-2037 Lg Electronics, Inc. v. ImmerVision, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 10 Jun 2021 396 d Closed
2021-2038 Lg Electronics, Inc. v. ImmerVision, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 10 Jun 2021 396 d Closed
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming ImmerVision, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what ImmerVision is protecting

Portfolio, claim scope and where its coverage is thin. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Analyse this portfolio
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

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.

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.