Data Resonance vs. Informatica: Voluntary Dismissal in Data Record Management Patent Case
Was möchten Sie als Nächstes tun?
Wählen Sie Ihren Weg entsprechend Ihren aktuellen Bedürfnissen:
📋 Fallzusammenfassung
| Fallbezeichnung | Data Resonance LLC v. Informatica Inc. |
| Fallnummer | 1:23-cv-01473 (D. Del.) |
| Gericht | Bezirk Delaware |
| Dauer | 96 days 3 months 5 days |
| Ergebnis | Defendant Win — Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice |
| Streitige Patente | |
| Beschuldigte Produkte | Informatica’s MDM and Data Quality product lines |
Fallübersicht
Die Parteien
⚖️ Kläger
A patent assertion entity (PAE) that brought this infringement action based on its ownership of a foundational data record management patent.
🛡️ Beklagter
A leading enterprise cloud data management company headquartered in Redwood City, California.
Streitgegenständliches Patent
This case involved one utility patent covering foundational data record management methodology. Utility patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect functional technology rather than ornamental design.
- • US6,934,714 B2 — Method and system for identification and maintenance of families of data records
Designing a similar data management solution?
Check if your data management solution might infringe this or related patents before launch.
Das Urteil und die rechtliche Analyse
Ergebnis
On April 2, 2024, Data Resonance LLC voluntarily dismissed all claims against Informatica, Inc. with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was issued. The case record does not reflect any court-ordered monetary settlement, although private licensing agreements reached before or concurrent with dismissal cannot be ruled out based on publicly available information.
Wichtige rechtliche Fragen
The combination of factors — early filing date, rapid resolution, with-prejudice designation, and mutual fee-bearing — presents several plausible strategic scenarios commonly observed in PAE litigation. The case resolved before any substantive motions were publicly recorded. The “with prejudice” designation is legally significant: it constitutes a final adjudication on the merits and bars Data Resonance from re-filing the same claims against Informatica based on US6,934,714 B2.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis for Data Management
This case highlights critical IP risks in data management and MDM. Choose your next step:
📋 Die Auswirkungen dieses Falls verstehen
Informieren Sie sich über die spezifischen Risiken und Auswirkungen dieses Rechtsstreits.
- Alle zugehörigen Patente in diesem Technologiebereich anzeigen
- Sehen Sie, welche Unternehmen im Bereich Datenmanagement-Patente am aktivsten sind
- Verstehen Sie die Muster der Anspruchsauslegung für Verfahrenspatente.
🔍 Das Risiko meines Produkts überprüfen
Führen Sie eine umfassende FTO-Analyse für Ihre eigene Technologie oder Ihr eigenes Produkt durch.
- Geben Sie Ihre Produktbeschreibung oder technischen Merkmale ein.
- KI identifiziert potenziell blockierende Patente
- Erhalten Sie einen umsetzbaren Risikobewertungsbericht
Risiko durch ältere Patente
Older method patents targeting core data functionality
1 Streitgegenständliches Patent
Focus on US6,934,714 B2
Alice/Mayo Concerns
Key defense leverage for software method patents
✅ Wichtigste Erkenntnisse
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with-prejudice dismissals are significant — they permanently bar re-assertion of the same claims against the same defendant.
Verwandte Rechtsprechung suchen →Early-stage resolution in PAE cases often reflects claim scope or validity concerns identified post-filing.
Präzedenzfälle erkunden →Häufig gestellte Fragen
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 6,934,714 B2 (Application No. US10/091,378), covering a method and system for identification and maintenance of families of data records.
Plaintiff Data Resonance LLC filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The specific business or legal rationale was not publicly disclosed, though early-stage analysis of claim scope or validity concerns often factor into such decisions.
It reinforces that early-stage resolution remains common in PAE-driven data method patent cases, and that with-prejudice dismissals permanently close the litigation door on specific defendant-patent pairings. It also highlights the continued assertion of legacy data method patents against enterprise software vendors.
FTO analysis for data record management, entity resolution, and deduplication functionality should address both active litigation and assertion-ready patent portfolios.
Sind Sie bereit, Ihre Patentstrategie zu stärken?
Schließen Sie sich den über 18.000 Fachleuten aus dem Bereich des geistigen Eigentums an, die PatSnap Eureka nutzen, um mit KI-gestützter Präzision Recherchen zum Stand der Technik durchzuführen, Patentanmeldungen zu erstellen und Wettbewerbslandschaften zu analysieren.
Referenzen
- United States District Court, District of Delaware — Case 1:23-cv-01473 (via PACER)
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Full-Text Database (US6,934,714 B2)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Enterprise Software
Dieser Artikel dient ausschließlich zu Informationszwecken und stellt keine Rechtsberatung dar. Alle Angaben zu den Fällen stammen aus öffentlich zugänglichen Gerichtsakten. Informationen zu den Funktionen der Plattform finden Sie auf PatSnap.