Image Processing Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al.

23-2136 Fed. Cir. Closed US6959293B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 10 Jul 2023 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 29 Jan 2025, with US6959293B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US6959293B2
Application no.
US09/792436
Case no.
23-2136
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
Fed. Cir.
Court level
Court of Appeals
Case region
District of Columbia
Judge
None recorded
Trial level
Appeal
Filed – Closed
10 Jul 2023 – 29 Jan 2025
Duration
569 days
Basis of termination
Appeal Dismissed
Products & marks
Method and device for automatic visual perception
Validity challenges
4 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 23-2136, 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
US6959293B2 Inactive App. US09/792436

Method and device for automatic visual perception

IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC

A visual perception processor comprises histogram calculation units, which receive the data DATA(A), DATA(B), . . . DATA(E) via a single data bus and supplying classification information to a single time coincidences bus. In a preferred embodiment the histogram calculation units are organized into a matrix.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
25 Oct 2005
Est. expiry
27 Mar 2022
Validity challenges
4 on recordIPR2017-01189 · Other · filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.IPR2017-00336 · Other · filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.90014056 · EPR · filed by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.IPR2023-00104 · Patentability · filed by LG Electronics, Inc.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06T7/40G06T1/20G06T1/00G06T1/40G06T5/40G06T7/00
Prosecution counsel
Byrne Poh LLP
US6959293B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US6959293B2, from the published patent document
US6959293B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US6959293B2, 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
David William HigerImage Processing Technologies, LLCPlaintiff
Jamie Herbert McDoleImage Processing Technologies, LLCPlaintiff
Michael KarsonImage Processing Technologies, LLCPlaintiff
Phillip B. PhilbinImage Processing Technologies, LLCPlaintiff
Clarence RowlandLG Electronics, Inc.Defendant
David AlmelingLG Electronics, Inc.Defendant
Grant GibsonLG Electronics, Inc.Defendant
Mark LiangLG Electronics, 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

"THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED."

Case 23-2136 · Fed. Cir. · closed 29 January 2025
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 Image Processing 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 image data processing & generation
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 23-2136?

23-2136 is a patent infringement action brought by Image Processing Technologies, LLC against LG Electronics, Inc., filed on 10 Jul 2023 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 29 January 2025.

Which patent was asserted in 23-2136?

US6959293B2 (“Method and device for automatic visual perception”), assigned to IMAGE PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Method and device for automatic visual perception.

How was case 23-2136 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: "THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED."

How long did case 23-2136 take?

569 calendar days, from filing on 10 Jul 2023 to closure on 29 January 2025.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 23-2136?

David William Higer, Jamie Herbert McDole, Michael Karson and Phillip B. Philbin are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Image Processing Technologies. Clarence Rowland, David Almeling, Grant Gibson and Mark Liang appear for defendant LG Electronics.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 23-2136 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-toHow to run a freedom-to-operate analysisScope, search, claim review and the report counsel will ask for.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 stepsCompetitor patent monitoring tools compared

Browse related dockets
Cases in Fed. Cir. Cases on image data processing & generation All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 23-2136 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.