D3D Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft, Co.

23-1011 Fed. Cir. Closed US8384771B1
Get a prior-art report

Patentability filed 5 Oct 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 20 Feb 2024, with US8384771B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8384771B1
Application no.
US11/941578
Case no.
23-1011
Verdict cause
Patentability
Court
Fed. Cir.
Court level
Court of Appeals
Case region
District of Columbia
Judge
None recorded
Trial level
Appeal
Filed – Closed
5 Oct 2022 – 20 Feb 2024
Duration
503 days
Basis of termination
Unpatentable
Products & marks
Method and apparatus for three dimensional viewing of images
Validity challenges
2 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 23-1011, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 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
US8384771B1 Inactive App. US11/941578

Method and apparatus for three dimensional viewing of images

D3D TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

A method, apparatus and computer program product for three dimensional viewing of images is presented. Embodiments of the invention provide a process for combining slices generated by medical imaging devices to create a volume of interest and then present this volume in a three-dimensional representation to a head display unit so that the user can obtain a holistic view of the patient. Key image processing techniques are applied which enable the user to rotate and view the volume of interest from alternative viewpoints; to enable tissue subtraction to facilitate unobstructed viewing of a region of interest; to identify differing tissues with color schematics; and to zoom in for optimal viewing.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
26 Feb 2013
Earliest priority
28 Dec 2006
Est. expiry
20 Jun 2031
Validity challenges
2 on recordIPR2021-00647 · Other · filed by MICROSOFT CORPORATIONIPR2021-00647 · Patentability · filed by D3D TECHNOLOGIES, INC
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04N13/04H04N13/211H04N13/221
Prosecution counsel
Almanac IP Advisors LLP
US8384771B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US8384771B1, from the published patent document
US8384771B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US8384771B1, 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
Tarek N. Fahmi.D3D Technologies, Inc.Plaintiff
Aamir Abdulqader KaziMicrosoft, Co.Defendant
Betty H. ChenMicrosoft, Co.Defendant
Nitika Gupta FiorellaMicrosoft, Co.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

"We have considered D3D’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm."

Case 23-1011 · Fed. Cir. · closed 20 February 2024
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 D3D 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 pictorial communication (video/tv)
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 23-1011?

23-1011 is a patent patentability brought by D3D Technologies, Inc. against Microsoft, Co., filed on 5 Oct 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 20 February 2024.

Which patent was asserted in 23-1011?

US8384771B1 (“Method and apparatus for three dimensional viewing of images”), assigned to D3D TECHNOLOGIES, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Method and apparatus for three dimensional viewing of images.

How was case 23-1011 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: "We have considered D3D’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm."

How long did case 23-1011 take?

503 calendar days, from filing on 5 Oct 2022 to closure on 20 February 2024.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 23-1011?

Tarek N. Fahmi. is recorded as counsel for plaintiff D3D Technologies. Aamir Abdulqader Kazi, Betty H. Chen and Nitika Gupta Fiorella appear for defendant Microsoft.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 23-1011 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 steps5G standard essential patents and licensing

Browse related dockets
Cases in Fed. Cir. Cases on pictorial communication (video/tv) All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 23-1011 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.