Litigation

David H. Judson v. Infonautics, Inc.

terminated

1:01-cv-10464

Auto-generating section 1 of 4: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Filed: 2001-03-19
Terminated: 2001-06-04

Patents at issue (5)

Plaintiffs (1)

π David H. Judson

Defendants (1)

Δ Infonautics, Inc.

Summary

David H. Judson sued Infonautics, Inc. in the District of Massachusetts. The '643 patent was asserted along with U.S. patents 5,722,067, 5,737,619, 6,157,823, and 6,185,586. The case was terminated on June 4, 2001.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 5572643-1-01-cv-10464 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Patent term and expiration
Patents don't last forever. They don't even reliably last 20 years. The expiration date that actually matters depends on the earliest filing date, the maintenance schedule, and any USPTO or FDA delays the patent owner can claim back.
What patent litigation actually costs (AIPLA Economic Survey)
It costs a few hundred dollars to file a patent complaint and a median of $1.5M-$3.2M to defend one through trial. That gap isn't a side effect of patent litigation — for a troll, it is the entire business model.
Anatomy of a shakedown: how a patent troll campaign actually works
A patent troll demand letter isn't a lawsuit. It's the output of an industrial process designed to extract money at scale, calibrated to your defense costs, and dependent on you not coordinating with the other 199 targets in the same campaign.
Lumen View v. FindTheBest (2013-2016): when a defendant fought back, the troll paid
Same patent. Same plaintiff playbook. Different outcome — because the defendant had the resources and the will to fight. Most don't. That's the asymmetry this site is built to fix.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
Bolting 'on a computer' onto an abstract business process doesn't make it patentable. Most software and business-method patents that look like 'doing X on a computer' don't survive when seriously challenged under Alice.

All resources →