nQueue, Inc. v. Control Systems, Inc.

8:12-cv-01365 C.D. Cal. Closed 0 patents

Infringement action filed 22 Aug 2012 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 26 Feb 2015, with 0 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: likely settlement.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·October 22, 2026

Case record

Patents involved
Case no.: 8:12-cv-01365
Verdict cause: Infringement action
Court: C.D. Cal.
Court level: District Court
Case region: California
Judge: Beverly Reid OConnell
Trial level: First instance
Filed – Closed: 22 Aug 2012 – 26 Feb 2015
Duration: 918 days
Basis of termination: Likely Settlement
Products & marks: Copitrak Embedded and Copitrak ES cost recovery systems
Validity challenges: None recorded

Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 8:12-cv-01365, United States District Court for the Central District of California. 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

NoveltyFTODesign FTO

Assess invalidity risk

01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions

Patent at issue

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

Plaintiff

nQueue, Inc.

Core tech: Not recorded
Counsel: Joel A. Kauth
Firm: Kauth Pomeroy Peck & Bailey LLP

View litigation record See its litigation pattern

Defendant

Control Systems, Inc.

Core tech: Not recorded
Counsel: Not recorded
Firm: Not recorded

View litigation record See its litigation pattern

Counsel of record

Attorney	For	Role
Joel A. Kauth	nQueue, Inc.	Plaintiff

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 8:12-cv-01365 · C.D. Cal. · closed 26 February 2015

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 nQueue, 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

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 8:12-cv-01365?

8:12-cv-01365 is a patent infringement action brought by nQueue, Inc. against Control Systems, Inc., filed on 22 Aug 2012 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 26 February 2015.

How long did case 8:12-cv-01365 take?

918 calendar days, from filing on 22 Aug 2012 to closure on 26 February 2015.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 8:12-cv-01365?

Judge Beverly Reid OConnell presided. Joel A. Kauth is recorded as counsel for plaintiff nQueue.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 8:12-cv-01365 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 C.D. Cal. All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 8:12-cv-01365 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.

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.