The original complaint

The case is Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. H Greg Auto Orlando, Inc., No. 6:26-cv-01990 (M.D. Fla., Orlando Division). Onscreen filed a seven page complaint on September 4, 2026, ECF No. 1, and an amended complaint on September 30, 2026, ECF No. 13, which is not available. The original complaint describes Onscreen as a Delaware limited liability company based in New York, and alleges, on information and belief, that the defendant is registered in Florida as a foreign entity and keeps a corporate office in Orlando. It pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), alleging an established place of business in the district.

What the patent covers

U.S. Patent 9,395,917, Electronic Display With a Virtual Bezel, issued July 19, 2016. Claim 1 covers a virtual bezel display screen for an electronic device with a virtual bezel area and an active touchscreen region inside it, each displaying a portion of the content and each having its own mode of response to the same set of touch inputs, and a gestural software application that produces the bezel area's mode of response, configured to selectively interpret touches there as intentional input affecting the content shown in the active region. Claims 2, 4, and 7 depend from claim 1, and claim 9 depends from claim 7: claim 2 has the software also produce the active region's mode, claim 4 treats a touch that starts in the active region and ends in the bezel area as a second type of input, and claims 7 and 9 add predefined soft buttons in the bezel area that the user can reposition and add to. The complaint alleges Onscreen is the assignee of all right, title, and interest in the patent.

The accused products

The original complaint alleges that the dealer directly and indirectly infringes at least claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 by selling, using, and offering for sale used vehicles manufactured in 2018 or later that incorporate technology covered by the patent, listing specific model years of seven models from five makes. As examples it cites vehicles advertised on the dealer's website as of September 1, 2026, and it refers to exemplary claim charts as Exhibits B through D. It alleges knowledge of the patent from at least the filing and service of the complaint, and that the dealer's customers also directly infringe by using the vehicles.

The relief sought

Onscreen asks for judgments that the patent is valid and enforceable and infringed, damages of no less than a reasonable royalty with interest and costs, a permanent injunction, and other relief. It demands a jury trial.

The docket so far

The court entered an order on September 25, 2026. Onscreen filed its amended complaint on September 30. The court issued an order to show cause on October 8, ECF No. 15. After a motion for more time to respond to the complaint (ECF No. 17, October 13), the court ruled on October 14. On October 22 two responses to the order to show cause were filed (ECF Nos. 20 and 22), along with a notice of a related action (ECF No. 21). The court entered another order on October 23, and a case management report was filed October 26, ECF No. 24.

What to watch next

Watch for the court's handling of the order to show cause, the dealer's response to the amended complaint, and a case management and scheduling order. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.