A Delaware, US, court has dismissed all claims brought by Neology against Hong Kong-based Star Systems International (SSI) under two patents held by Neology, namely US Patents US 6,690,264 and US 6,229,443.
Neology had previously alleged that any 6C-compliant transponder infringed the two patents.
SSI has been one of the defendants in a lawsuit brought by Neology in 2014 against several RFID companies in the US District Court for the District of Delaware. In summary, Neology asserts that various pate
A Delaware, US, court has dismissed all claims brought by 8297 Neology against Hong Kong-based 7422 Star Systems International (SSI) under two patents held by Neology, namely US Patents US 6,690,264 and US 6,229,443.
Neology had previously alleged that any 6C-compliant transponder infringed the two patents.
SSI has been one of the defendants in a lawsuit brought by Neology in 2014 against several RFID companies in the US District Court for the District of Delaware. In summary, Neology asserts that various patents it owns prevent the marketing and sale in the US, by SSI and others, of various hardware devices compliant with the ISO 18000-6C Standard. SSI has been defending itself vigorously since the first day of the lawsuit.
On 22 January 2016, the court dismissed ‘with prejudice’ all claims brought by Neology against SSI. In other words, Neology is effectively prevented from asserting in the future the same claim against SSI based on both patents.
Neology had previously alleged that any 6C-compliant transponder infringed the two patents.
SSI has been one of the defendants in a lawsuit brought by Neology in 2014 against several RFID companies in the US District Court for the District of Delaware. In summary, Neology asserts that various patents it owns prevent the marketing and sale in the US, by SSI and others, of various hardware devices compliant with the ISO 18000-6C Standard. SSI has been defending itself vigorously since the first day of the lawsuit.
On 22 January 2016, the court dismissed ‘with prejudice’ all claims brought by Neology against SSI. In other words, Neology is effectively prevented from asserting in the future the same claim against SSI based on both patents.
