Case summary
- Plaintiff
- Reflection Code, LLC
- Defendant
- Actiontec Electronics, Inc.
- Patents asserted
- US7963446B2“Bar code device”US8733657B2“Barcode device”US8763907B2“Barcode device”
- Products listed
- Quick response code found Actiontec MyWireless TV2 - two-dimensional barcode device products
- Court
- E.D. Mich.
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Filed
- 9 Jan 2017
- Closed
- 20 Jul 2017 (192 days)
- Recorded category
- Voluntary dismissal
- Judge
- Bernard A. Friedman
- Case no.
- 2:17-cv-10059
Counsel of record · 2 attorneys, 2 firms
- Christopher G. Darrow, plaintiff counsel
- Neil J. Mcnabnay, defendant counsel
- Plaintiff firm: Darrow Mustafa, PC
- Defendant firm: Fish & Richardson PC
How the case ended
The case record does not include the text of the closing order.
Check your product against patent claims
FTO Search in Patsnap Eureka finds patent claims relevant to your product’s technical features, so you can review them before launch.
Need a monthly report on closed US patent cases?
Every case that closed last month, with the court, the outcome and the patents involved.
Docket fields sourced from PACER via Patsnap Litigation Data. Patent bibliographic data from Patsnap.
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.Read
- 02 / AI agentFTO ReportCheck whether your own product could read on these claims.Run it
- 03 / Free toolAI prior art searchDescribe an idea, get the closest patents.Try tool
More next stepsHow to run a freedom-to-operate analysis
General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:17-cv-10059 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.
Report an incorrect record
Tell us what is wrong on this page. The page address is included automatically.
Privacy request
For requests about your personal information on this page. The page address is included automatically.