The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision on January 7, 2026, resolving appeals in the patent dispute between Indect USA Corp. and Park Assist, LLC over camera-based parking management technology.
The case centers on U.S. Patent No. 9,594,956, owned by Park Assist, which covers methods of using camera-based technology for the management of parking spaces. The litigation began in 2018 when Indect filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, seeking declaratory judgments that it and its customers do not infringe the patent and that the patent's claims are invalid.
Indect's original complaint also alleged that Park Assist engaged in unfair competition under the Lanham Act by threatening to sue Indect's customers and by bringing and maintaining a lawsuit against the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, one of Indect's customers. These allegations suggest Park Assist may have been pursuing patent enforcement actions against multiple parties in the parking technology sector.
Park Assist responded to Indect's lawsuit with counterclaims alleging that Indect directly infringed the patent and induced others to infringe the technology covered by the patent. This cross-claim strategy is common in patent litigation, where defendants often assert their own intellectual property rights against the original plaintiff.
The case proceeded through the district court with Senior Judge Roger T. Benitez presiding. Following a jury trial and post-trial motions, the district court entered a declaratory judgment that Indect did not infringe the patent. However, neither party obtained all the relief it sought in the lower court proceedings, leading both parties to file appeals to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit panel consisted of Circuit Judges Alan D. Lourie, Jimmie V. Reyna, and District Judge Vince Chhabria sitting by designation. Circuit Judge Stark authored the opinion for the court.
Indect was represented by Paul V. Storm of Foley & Lardner LLP in Dallas, along with Randy Pummill and Michelle A. Moran from the firm's Milwaukee office. Park Assist's legal team included Tod Mathew Melgar from Lippes Mathias LLP in New York and Scott Stimpson from Sills Cummis & Gross PC, also in New York.
The Federal Circuit's decision is marked as nonprecedential, meaning it does not establish binding legal precedent for future cases. Nonprecedential decisions are common in patent appeals and typically address case-specific factual disputes rather than novel legal questions that would warrant precedential treatment.
The underlying patent technology involves camera-based systems for parking management, a growing area of intellectual property litigation as cities and private entities increasingly deploy smart parking solutions. These systems typically use cameras and image processing technology to monitor parking space occupancy, detect violations, and manage parking enforcement.
The involvement of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority as a customer highlights how patent disputes in the parking technology sector can affect public entities that contract with private companies for parking management services. Airports and other transportation hubs are significant users of advanced parking technologies due to their high-volume parking operations.
The case demonstrates the complex nature of modern patent litigation, where companies must navigate not only direct infringement claims but also broader business torts such as unfair competition claims under federal trademark law. The Lanham Act claims suggest Indect was concerned about Park Assist's patent enforcement strategy affecting its business relationships with customers.
Both parties filing appeals indicates that the district court's resolution left significant issues unresolved for each side. While Indect obtained a non-infringement finding, it may not have prevailed on all aspects of its invalidity claims or its Lanham Act allegations. Similarly, Park Assist's decision to cross-appeal suggests dissatisfaction with aspects of the lower court's ruling on its infringement counterclaims.
The timing of the Federal Circuit's decision, coming more than seven years after the initial lawsuit filing, reflects the lengthy nature of complex patent litigation that proceeds through trial and appeals. Patent cases involving technology disputes often require extensive discovery, expert testimony, and technical claim construction that can extend litigation timelines significantly.
The decision's impact on the parking technology industry will depend on the specific holdings in the full opinion, which was not included in the available court documents. Companies operating in the smart parking sector will likely review the decision for guidance on patent strategy and enforcement approaches involving camera-based parking management systems.
The case represents another example of how intellectual property disputes in emerging technology sectors can involve multiple parties across different market levels, from technology developers to end users in public and private sectors.