Last updated: June 25, 2026
Leighton Technologies LLC v. Oberthur Card Systems, S.A. (1:04-cv-02496): Litigation Summary, Patent Claims, Parties, and Outcome Analysis
What was the Leighton Technologies LLC v. Oberthur Card Systems lawsuit (1:04-cv-02496) about?
The case Leighton Technologies LLC v. Oberthur Card Systems, S.A., 1:04-cv-02496, is a federal patent infringement matter filed in the U.S. District Court in 2004. It names Leighton Technologies LLC as plaintiff and Oberthur Card Systems, S.A. as defendant.
The docket number indicates a civil action commenced in 2004, with litigation advancing through the typical stages of pleadings, claim construction and/or motion practice, and case disposition.
Who were the parties and what roles did they play?
- Plaintiff: Leighton Technologies LLC
- Defendant: Oberthur Card Systems, S.A.
- Nature of action: Patent infringement (federal)
What procedural milestones governed the case timeline?
The case originates in 2004 based on the docket and caption:
- Filed: 2004 (based on case number 1:04-cv-02496)
- Subsequent litigation: motion practice and disposition events consistent with patent cases
How did the court resolve the case?
The litigation is a discrete federal action with a terminal docket outcome. The final disposition in patent cases under this numbering framework is typically one of: claim dismissal, summary judgment, settlement dismissal, or final judgment after trial.
However, the record needed to state the exact resolution (dismissal type, judgment date, and whether any claims survived) is not available in the information provided in this chat.
What patent claims were asserted and what technologies were at issue?
A litigation analysis requires:
- asserted patent numbers
- independent and dependent claim scope
- technology framing (system architecture, method steps, product elements)
- prosecution history and claim construction outcomes
No asserted patent numbers, claim chart details, or court orders are present in the information provided here. Without them, an accurate claim-level infringement/validity analysis cannot be produced.
Which legal issues were likely litigated in a 2004-era patent case like this?
For a 2004 patent infringement case, typical issues include:
- Claim construction (Markman)
- Infringement (literal infringement vs. doctrine of equivalents)
- Validity challenges (anticipation/obviousness, indefiniteness)
- Procedural defenses (jurisdiction, standing, service, venue)
- Damages (reasonable royalty, lost profits where applicable)
A litigation summary becomes actionable only when tied to specific motions and outcomes (e.g., “summary judgment granted on claim X for anticipation by Y reference” or “terms construed to require Z, narrowing infringement”).
What does the docket number indicate about venue and court posture?
The case number format 1:04-cv-02496 signals:
- a federal district court action
- docket sequence consistent with a consolidated district tracking scheme for 2004 filings
But precise court location (district) and judge assignment are not stated here. Without them, any statement about local rules, claim construction handling, or procedural cadence would be speculative.
What settlement or discontinuation events occurred, and what do they imply?
Many patent cases resolve through:
- stipulation of dismissal
- settlement agreement
- consent judgment
- withdrawal after adverse claim construction
The specific event type is not included in the provided input. Without the settlement/disposition text, damages or invalidity implications cannot be inferred reliably.
How strong was Leighton’s patent estate in this litigation context?
Assessing “strength” requires:
- asserted patent claims and their construction
- validity rulings
- sustained infringement findings
- surviving claims at summary judgment or trial
- appeal history, if any
None of those elements are available in the provided information.
How does this case affect Oberthur Card Systems’s competitive risk profile?
An impact analysis requires:
- injunction or damages exposure (if any)
- product scope covered by infringement findings
- whether the case settled before merits resolution
- subsequent re-filing, continuations, or related litigations
Those details are not present here, so no defensible litigation risk conclusion can be made.
What should investors and licensors take from this case, strategically?
A usable strategic view depends on:
- outcome (dismissal vs. merits win vs. settlement)
- claim narrowing or invalidation
- whether Oberthur licensed or redesigned
- whether Leighton escalated to other defendants
No disposition details or parallel actions are included in the provided input, so strategic assertions would not be grounded.
Key Takeaways
- Leighton Technologies LLC sued Oberthur Card Systems, S.A. in federal court under docket 1:04-cv-02496 in 2004.
- A complete litigation summary and infringement/validity analysis requires the asserted patent numbers, claim constructions, and disposition orders, none of which are provided in the input here.
- Without docket text or court orders, any claim-level or outcome-level interpretation would be inaccurate.
FAQs
- What patents did Leighton Technologies LLC assert against Oberthur Card Systems in 1:04-cv-02496?
- Did the court construe any claim terms in Leighton v. Oberthur, and how did that affect infringement?
- Was there a final judgment on infringement or validity, or did the case end in settlement or dismissal?
- Did Leighton’s patents face prior-art challenges or indefiniteness arguments in this case?
- Did Oberthur change products or seek redesign after claim construction in 1:04-cv-02496?
References
No sources were provided in the prompt for this docket, so no citations can be listed.
