Proxense, Inc. v. Macy's, Inc.

1:19-cv-05916 N.D. Ill. Closed US8340672B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 4 Sep 2019 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and closed 17 Dec 2019, with US8340672B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8340672B2
Application no.
US11/620581
Case no.
1:19-cv-05916
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
N.D. Ill.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Illinois
Judge
Virginia M. Kendall
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
4 Sep 2019 – 17 Dec 2019
Duration
104 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Beacon technology, systems and associated devices
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:19-cv-05916, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. 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
US8340672B2 Active App. US11/620581

Wireless network synchronization of cells and client devices on a network

PROXENSE, LLC.

A wireless synchronization device is used to coordinate the timing and activities of individual, possibly physically separated, wireless service providers with defined coverage area. Further, the synchronization information is used to coordinate the timing and activities of portable wireless client devices in an autonomous, wireless proximity sensing and data transfer network. Moreover, one or more of the wireless service providers can be arranged to simultaneously monitor broadcasts from the wireless synchronization device and communicate with one or more of the portable wireless client devices.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
25 Dec 2012
Earliest priority
6 Jan 2006
Est. expiry
19 Feb 2029
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04W40/00
Prosecution counsel
Patent Law Works/Proxense
US8340672B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US8340672B2, from the published patent document
US8340672B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US8340672B2, 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
Richard T. McCaulleyProxense, 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 1:19-cv-05916 · N.D. Ill. · closed 17 December 2019
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 Proxense, 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 wireless communication networks
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:19-cv-05916?

1:19-cv-05916 is a patent infringement action brought by Proxense, Inc. against Macy's, Inc., filed on 4 Sep 2019 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed on 17 December 2019.

Which patent was asserted in 1:19-cv-05916?

US8340672B2 (“Wireless network synchronization of cells and client devices on a network”), assigned to PROXENSE, LLC., currently active. The record also lists Beacon technology, systems and associated devices.

What does voluntary dismissal mean?

A voluntary dismissal is one the plaintiff asks for rather than one the court imposes. Where both sides stipulate to it, it commonly signals a settlement that is not filed on the public docket.

How long did case 1:19-cv-05916 take?

104 calendar days, from filing on 4 Sep 2019 to closure on 17 December 2019.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:19-cv-05916?

Judge Virginia M. Kendall presided. Richard T. McCaulley is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Proxense.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:19-cv-05916 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 N.D. Ill. Cases on wireless communication networks All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:19-cv-05916 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.