ButterflyMX Patent Lawsuit: Luxer’s Infringement Case Dismissed

The ButterflyMX patent lawsuit ended in a quick, clean win for the company. Luxer Corporation, a subsidiary of ASSA ABLOY, sued ButterflyMX in May 2024 claiming its “Package Room” product infringed a Luxer patent on storage-room access control. A federal judge in Delaware threw the case out in February 2025, ruling the patent covered an abstract idea and was invalid. Luxer appealed, then voluntarily dropped the appeal in April 2025.

What Luxer Accused ButterflyMX Of

Luxer filed the case on May 20, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. It alleged that ButterflyMX’s Package Room product infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,625,675, titled “Method and system for controlling a storage room” and issued on April 11, 2023.¹²

The ‘675 patent describes a system that receives an access request from a terminal, checks the user’s identity and code against stored credentials, and signals an electronic lock to open a package storage room door if the credentials match. The patent specifies that the room must be stationary, part of a building, and large enough to hold small, medium, and oversized packages.²

According to the complaint, ButterflyMX’s Package Room, offered since July 2021, worked similarly: a door-mounted panel takes a timestamped photo of the person seeking entry, and couriers or residents get in by entering a personal identification number. Luxer sought an injunction and monetary damages.²

How ButterflyMX Got the Case Thrown Out

ButterflyMX did not litigate whether its product actually copied Luxer’s technology. Instead, it attacked the patent itself, filing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and arguing that the claims were directed to an abstract idea and therefore ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Its argument was simple. Controlling access to a room by checking credentials is something humans have always done. A concierge or doorman looks at an ID, checks it against a list, and lets someone in or turns them away. The patent, ButterflyMX said, just automated that with off-the-shelf components: processors, keypads, electronic locks, and standard wireless signals. The patent’s own specification called those components “well-understood, routine, and conventional.” ButterflyMX also argued that the size of the storage room was beside the point, because room dimensions have nothing to do with verifying credentials or opening a lock.²

Why the Judge Sided With ButterflyMX

Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves agreed on every point, applying the two-step framework from the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.

At step one, she found the claims directed to an abstract idea: “authorizing access to a secure location upon verification of a user’s credentials.” She compared the system to a human concierge checking identification against a guest list. The claimed invention, she wrote, did not focus on any specific method that improves existing technology.²

At step two, she looked for an “inventive concept” that might save the patent and found none. The system used generic components, and the specification admitted as much. Luxer’s argument about the physical size of the room did not move her: room size, she held, is “unrelated to the processes of verifying credentials or allowing access.”²

The ruling drew on Federal Circuit precedent holding that controlling access to resources is “exactly the sort of process that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper,” citing Ericsson Inc. v. Communication Technology Holdings (2020). It also compared the patent to the one invalidated in Universal Secure Registry, LLC v. Apple Inc. (2021), where claims covering user authentication with handheld devices and biometrics were found abstract.³

The case was terminated on February 6, 2025, 262 days after it was filed.¹

Luxer Lost the Same Way Against Package Concierge

ButterflyMX was not Luxer’s only target. On the same day it sued ButterflyMX, Luxer filed a parallel case against Package Concierge, Inc. before the same judge, asserting the same ‘675 patent against Package Concierge’s cloud-based package room platform (Case No. 1:24-cv-00603).⁴

Judge Choe-Groves dismissed that case on the same day and on the same grounds. Because the same patent was found ineligible in a final judgment, Luxer cannot re-litigate the same infringement theory against Package Concierge.⁴

The Appeal Was Dropped

Luxer filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 21, 2025 (Appeal No. 25-1481).¹

It didn’t last. On April 11, 2025, on the parties’ stipulation, the Federal Circuit deconsolidated the ButterflyMX appeal from two related appeals and dismissed it voluntarily under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). Each side agreed to bear its own costs, and the court issued its mandate the same day.⁵

The dismissal made the district court’s ruling final. It also came before any discovery, claim construction, or trial in the district court, which is about as favorable an outcome as a patent defendant can get.

What the Ruling Does Not Reach

The decision invalidated one specific patent, not Luxer’s broader intellectual property position. Luxer holds a portfolio of related patents covering automated storage systems, package delivery methods, and communication protocols for non-internet-enabled devices, with new patents continuing to issue as recently as 2026.⁶ Whether Luxer or ASSA ABLOY will assert any of those patents against competitors is a separate question the ButterflyMX ruling does not answer.

1
CourtListener. Luxer Corporation v. ButterflyMX, Inc.
2
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Opinion and Order, Case No. 1:24-cv-00602-JCG
3
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Opinion and Order, Case No. 1:24-cv-00604
4
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Opinion and Order, Case No. 1:24-cv-00603-JCG
5
Justia. Luxer Corp. v. ButterflyMX, Inc., No. 25-1481
6
Justia Patents. Patents Assigned to Luxer Corporation