Patent 10001780

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-pro

PTAB activity (1)

AIA trial proceedings — IPR, PGR, CBM — filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced directly from the PTAB Trial API.

  • IPR2025-01600IPRfiled Oct 30, 2025vs. Avidbots Corporation et al.Discretionary Denial

Cached for 24 hours. Status strings are sourced verbatim from the PTAB API; the colored badge is our heuristic classification.

Cases on file (1)

Group view →

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 10001780. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

✓ Generated

As a patent attorney, I can report that US Patent No. 10,001,780 is involved in at least one pending litigation. Here are the details of the known case:

Brain Corporation v. Avidbots Corp. and Avidbots USA Corp.

  • Plaintiff(s): Brain Corporation
  • Defendant(s): Avidbots Corp. and Avidbots USA Corp.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • Case Number: 1:24-cv-12569
  • Filing Date: December 6, 2024.
  • Status: Active/Pending. The complaint was filed in December 2024, and the parties have been engaged in motion practice. A motion to dismiss filed by the defendants was denied in April 2025, and the case is proceeding with discovery and claim construction, with a hearing scheduled for June 17, 2026.

Allegations: Brain Corporation alleges that Avidbots' autonomous floor-scrubbing robots, including the "Neo," "Neo 2," and "Neo 2W" models, infringe on several of its patents, including US Patent 10,001,780. The '780 patent, titled "Systems and Methods For Dynamic Route Planning In Autonomous Navigation," is central to the dispute, with Brain Corp asserting that Avidbots' products use the patented technology for dynamic route planning and obstacle avoidance.

In addition to this district court case, there is a related proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB):

IPR2025-01600

This PTAB proceeding was a challenge to the validity of the '780 patent. However, the PTAB declined to institute a trial on procedural grounds. It is important to note that this decision does not reflect a judgment on the patent's validity itself.

Generated 5/13/2026, 12:31:32 AM