Patent 6415207

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 (4)

Group view →

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6415207. 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

US Patent 6415207 Subject of Extensive Litigation Campaign

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Patent No. 6,415,207, titled "System and method for automatically providing vehicle status information," has been the subject of a significant and prolonged litigation campaign by its assignee, Shipping & Transit, LLC (formerly known as ArrivalStar). The company has filed hundreds of lawsuits against a wide array of defendants, primarily targeting retailers and logistics companies.

The lawsuits generally alleged that the defendants' use of package tracking and notification systems infringed upon the '207 patent. This enforcement campaign led to numerous legal challenges, including motions to invalidate the patent and an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Below is a summary of known litigation involving this patent.

District Court Litigation

A vast number of cases were filed by Shipping & Transit, LLC, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent 6,415,207, often alongside other patents in their portfolio. Many of these cases followed a pattern of being dismissed shortly after the defendant filed a substantive motion challenging the patent's validity.

Key Representative Cases:

  • Shipping & Transit, LLC v. Hall Enterprises, Inc.

    • Plaintiff: Shipping and Transit, LLC
    • Defendant: Hall Enterprises, Inc.
    • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
    • Case Number: 2:16-cv-06535
    • Filing Date: August 30, 2016
    • Outcome: In a notable decision, the court found the asserted patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of "monitoring and reporting the location of a vehicle" and lacked an inventive concept. Consequently, the court declared the case "exceptional" and ordered Shipping & Transit, LLC to pay the defendant's attorney's fees.
  • Shipping & Transit, LLC v. Neptune Cigars, Inc.

    • Plaintiff: Shipping and Transit, LLC
    • Defendant: Neptune Cigars, Inc.
    • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
    • Case Number: 2:16-cv-03836
    • Filing Date: June 1, 2016
    • Outcome: Neptune Cigars filed a motion arguing that the '207 patent was invalid under the Supreme Court's Alice v. CLS Bank decision, which set a framework for determining patent eligibility of abstract ideas. The case was subsequently dismissed.
  • Shipping & Transit, LLC v. Loginext

    • Plaintiff: Shipping and Transit, LLC
    • Defendant: Loginext
    • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court
    • Case Number: Information not publicly available.
    • Filing Date: Believed to be in 2016.
    • Outcome: Similar to the Neptune Cigars case, Loginext filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the '207 patent was invalid under Alice. Following this motion, Shipping & Transit, LLC voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit.

Inter Partes Review (IPR)

In addition to the district court litigations, the validity of U.S. Patent 6,415,207 was challenged at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

  • Unified Patents Inc. v. Shipping and Transit LLC
    • Petitioner: Unified Patents Inc.
    • Patent Owner: Shipping and Transit LLC
    • Jurisdiction: U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
    • Case Number: IPR2016-01465
    • Filing Date: July 25, 2016
    • Outcome: The PTAB instituted a trial to review the patentability of the '207 patent's claims. The proceedings ultimately concluded with a settlement between the parties, leading to the termination of the IPR.

Generated 5/11/2026, 12:47:38 PM