iRobot Corporation Patent litigation record

Company 24 cases

24 cases on record naming iRobot Corporation: 11 as claimant, 13 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

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

24 cases on record

Cases on record
24
As claimant
11
As respondent
13
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
A47L11/00 · A47L11/24 · G06F19/00 · G01C21/20 · B60L11/18 · H02J7/02 · H02J7/00 · A47L9/00 · A47L9/28 · G05D1/02 · A47L11/40 · G01C21/00 · G05D1/00 · B25J11/00 · A47L5/00 · A47L5/30 · A47L5/34 · B08B13/00 · B25J5/00 · A47L7/02 · B25J13/00 · B25J19/02
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
23-1416 Sharkninja Operating, LLC v. iRobot, Corp. Defendant Fed. Cir. 23 Jan 2023 562 d Unpatentable
23-1151 Sharkninja Operating, LLC v. iRobot, Corp. Defendant Fed. Cir. 15 Nov 2022 486 d Patent Upheld
2022-1302 iRobot Corporation v. Sharkninja Operating, LLC Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 27 Dec 2021 129 d Closed
2022-1287 Sharkninja Operating, LLC v. iRobot Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 21 Dec 2021 135 d Closed
2022-1233 iRobot Corporation v. Sharkninja Operating, LLC Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 8 Dec 2021 148 d Closed
2022-1235 iRobot Corporation v. Sharkninja Operating, LLC Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 8 Dec 2021 148 d Closed
1:21-cv-00388 Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. iRobot Corporation Defendant D. Del. 17 Mar 2021 126 d Voluntary dismissal
337-TA-1252 iRobot, Corp. v. EP Midco, LLC Plaintiff United States International Trade Commission 28 Jan 2021 782 d Case Terminated
1:19-cv-12236 Sharkninja Operating, LLC v. iRobot, Corp. Defendant D. Mass. 30 Oct 2019 1370 d Case Dismissed
1:19-cv-01935 Sharkninja Operating, LLC v. iRobot, Corp. Defendant D. Del. 11 Oct 2019 18 d Case Transferred
2019-1111 Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. v. iRobot Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 24 Oct 2018 174 d Closed
2019-1101 Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. v. iRobot Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 23 Oct 2018 175 d Closed
2019-1103 Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. v. iRobot Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 23 Oct 2018 175 d Closed
2019-1104 Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. v. iRobot Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 23 Oct 2018 175 d Closed
2019-1109 Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. v. iRobot Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 23 Oct 2018 175 d Closed
2018-1690 iRobot Corporation v. International Trade Commission Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 15 Mar 2018 400 d Closed
1:17-cv-12483 Matsutek Enterprises Co., Ltd. v. iRobot Corporation Defendant D. Mass. 18 Dec 2017 93 d Voluntary dismissal
337-TA-1057 iRobot Corporation v. Bissell Homecare, Inc. Plaintiff United States International Trade Commission 23 May 2017 556 d Closed
1:17-cv-10647 iRobot Corporation v. Hoover, Inc. Plaintiff D. Mass. 17 Apr 2017 742 d Voluntary dismissal
1:17-cv-10648 iRobot Corporation v. The Black & Decker Corporation Plaintiff D. Mass. 17 Apr 2017 742 d Voluntary dismissal
1:17-cv-10649 iRobot Corporation v. Bissell Homecare, Inc. Plaintiff D. Mass. 17 Apr 2017 275 d Voluntary dismissal
1:17-cv-10651 iRobot Corporation v. Bobsweep, Inc. Plaintiff D. Mass. 17 Apr 2017 742 d Voluntary dismissal
1:17-cv-10652 iRobot, Corp. v. Shenzhen Zhiyi Technology Co., Ltd. Plaintiff D. Mass. 17 Apr 2017 521 d Voluntary dismissal
2:16-cv-01183 MC Robotics, LLC v. iRobot Corporation Defendant E.D. Tex. 19 Oct 2016 57 d Voluntary dismissal
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming iRobot Corporation in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what iRobot 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.