Litigation

Triune Star, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

summary judgment of non-infringement and Rule 11 sanctions; on appeal

1:07-cv-01256

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: 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 Central District of Illinois, Peoria Office
Filed: 2007-09-28

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Triune Star, Inc.

Defendants (7)

Summary

Triune Star, Inc. sued mobile phone and electronics defendants for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,122,521. [The Walt Disney Company](/litigations/by-plaintiff/The%20Walt%20Disney%20Company) was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court later granted the remaining defendants summary judgment of non-infringement and awarded Rule 11 sanctions against Triune Star and its counsel.

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).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

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: 6122521-1-07-cv-01256 · edit in Admin

Further reading

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.
Patent trolls in 2025: the year in numbers
2025 was a banner year for patent trolls — and not by accident. Filings surged while the defendant's cheapest weapon, the PTAB, was quietly taken off the table. Here's what the reporting shows, and why the two are connected.
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.
Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) lawsuit defense: a defendant's playbook
Defending an NPE suit is different from defending a competitor's suit. The asymmetries cut both ways — and the right plays exploit the ones that favor the defendant.
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.

All resources →