Plaintiff

NeoMedia Technologies, Inc.

2 cases as plaintiff.

NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. Kao USA, Inc.

Terminated
Docket:
1:13-cv-00850
Court:
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
Filed:
2013-04-02
Patents:8,131,597

NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Kao USA, Inc. While the specific patents asserted are not detailed in all publicly available documents, the context of NeoMedia's litigation activities at the time makes it highly probable that U.S. Patent No. 8,131,597 was included. The suit was filed in the District of Colorado, a frequent venue for patent cases.

The case was terminated on May 31, 2013, less than two months after its initiation. The rapid resolution of this lawsuit strongly suggests that the two companies reached an out-of-court settlement. The terms of such agreements are typically confidential and are not disclosed in public court records. This outcome allowed both parties to avoid the significant costs and uncertainties associated with a prolonged patent infringement trial.

NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. SpyderLynk, LLC

Status unclear, likely settled
Court:
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
Filed:
2012-04-09
Patents:8,131,597

NeoMedia Technologies, Inc., a company specializing in mobile barcode technology, filed a lawsuit against SpyderLynk, LLC, for patent infringement. The complaint alleged that SpyderLynk's mobile barcode resolution technology directly infringed on two of NeoMedia's patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,131,597. NeoMedia sought an injunction to stop the alleged infringement and also claimed damages.

The lawsuit was part of a broader effort by NeoMedia to enforce its intellectual property rights in the burgeoning field of mobile marketing and advertising. The technology in question relates to the systems and methods that allow a mobile device to scan a barcode and be directed to a specific website or online content. The public record does not show a definitive judgment in this case, which suggests that the parties likely reached a confidential settlement, a common practice in corporate patent litigation.