Patent 5841978

Litigation summary

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

Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-pro

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged through Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review at the USPTO. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs.

Cases on file (2)

Group view →

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5841978. 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

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 5,841,978

As of April 26, 2026, research into litigation records indicates that US Patent 5,841,978 has been involved in legal disputes, primarily initiated by the assignee, Digimarc Corporation, to enforce its patent rights.

A notable series of lawsuits involved Digimarc Corporation and Verance Corporation. Digimarc filed multiple patent infringement lawsuits against Verance, with the first action initiated in March 2000 over three other patents, and a subsequent suit in September 2001 that alleged infringement of the patent for embedding a digital watermark in audio or video content. These legal battles centered on digital watermarking technologies.

The disputes between Digimarc and Verance were extensive. In September 2001, Digimarc announced its third patent-infringement lawsuit against Verance, filed in the U.S. District Court of Oregon. This particular suit pertained to a patent for embedding digital watermarks into audio or video content. The long-standing legal conflict between the two companies eventually concluded with a settlement in August 2002. Under the terms of the settlement, Verance agreed to pay Digimarc a license initiation fee and other payments exceeding $2 million.

Further legal entanglements between the two companies arose later. In January 2012, Digimarc announced a resolution to all outstanding disputes with Verance concerning existing patent and breach of contract claims. This resolution involved a joint motion to dismiss Digimarc's breach of contract claim related to the 2002 license agreement and a joint motion to dismiss Verance's appeal in a declaratory judgment action that had alleged invalidity and non-infringement of twenty-two Digimarc patents. The companies entered into a new three-year license agreement, with Verance making an $8 million payment to Digimarc.

Details of a specific case from these disputes are:

  • Plaintiff(s): Digimarc Corp.
  • Defendant(s): Verance Corp.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
  • Case Number: Information not publicly available in the search results.
  • Filing Date: September 2001
  • Outcome/Status: Settled in August 2002.

Another legal action includes:

  • Plaintiff(s): Verance Corp.
  • Defendant(s): Digimarc Corp.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:2010cv00831
  • Filing Date: 2010
  • Outcome/Status: This was an action for declaratory judgment alleging invalidity and non-infringement. The case was jointly dismissed in January 2012 as part of a broader settlement and new license agreement between the parties.

No other specific litigation involving US Patent 5,841,978 was identified in the available search results.

Generated 4/30/2026, 2:23:54 AM