[24]7.ai, Inc. et al. v. Liveperson, Inc.
Infringement action filed 22 Jun 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and closed 30 Oct 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9077804B2US7228278B2US8737599B2US8396741B2US7747438B2
- Case no.
- 4:15-cv-02897
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 22 Jun 2015 – 30 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 3052 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Interaction management · Mining interactions to manage customer experience throughout a customer service lifecycle · Multi-slot dialog systems and methods
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Interaction management
A company/organization is enabled to optimize sessions from an agent’s perspective across multiple channels. Actions may be performed, such as monitoring the journey of a user across a self service application, raising alerts to the agent based on the journey, selecting an appropriate agent to whom a session may be routed, raising alerts for a supervisor, enabling the supervisor to track sessions and intervene if required, enable the agent to run commands from an interaction window, push links to launch applications to supplement the primary interaction through appropriate mechanisms, show appropriate responses to the agent on analyzing the session, and providing shortcut keys for the agent to allow the agent to insert appropriate responses into a chat session. Analysis is provided for the sessions, data is extracted from the sessions, and appropriate forms are populated with the data from the session and with agent information.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 7 Jul 2015
- Earliest priority
- 23 Nov 2011
- Est. expiry
- 25 Sep 2032
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2017-00610 · Other · filed by LivePerson, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KANNAN, PALLIPURAM V. · KUMAR, GANGADHARAN · KUMAR, DEEPAK
- Classification
- H04M3/00H04M5/00H04M3/51
- Prosecution counsel
- PERKINS COIE LLP
- Examiner
- ADDY, THJUAN K
Multi-slot dialog systems and methods
Systems and methods for constructing a series of interactions with a user to collect multiple pieces of related information for the purpose of accomplishing a specific goal or topic (a multi-slot dialog) using a component-based approach are disclosed. The method generally includes outputting a primary header prompt to elicit values for slots in a segment from the user, receiving a primary user response containing a value for each slot in at least a subset of the slots in the segment, processing the primary user response to determine at least one possible recognition value for each slot contained in the primary user response, filling each slot contained in the primary user response with a matched value selected from the corresponding possible recognition values, and repeating the outputting, receiving, processing and filling for any unfilled slots in the segment until all slots in the segment of slots are filled.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 5 Jun 2007
- Est. expiry
- 28 Oct 2024
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Classification
- G10L15/18
- Prosecution counsel
- ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
- Examiner
- DORVIL, RICHEMOND
Also asserted in this case
3 moreThe docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
[24]7.ai, Inc.
- Core tech
- H04M3/00H04M5/00H04M3/51G10L15/18
- Counsel
- Alexander Bok-Sing Parker · Anne Elizabeth Huffsmith · Bill Trac · Carolyn Suzanne Wall · Darin Walter Snyder · David R. Eberhart · Elysa Qian Wan · Geoffrey Hurndall Yost · George Riley · Jay Choi · Jeffrey Michael Ratinoff · John V. Picone III · Mark E. Miller · Robert Kumar Jain · Susan Dana Roeder
- Firm
- Holland & Knight LLP, Hopkins & Carley ALC, O’Melveny & Meyers LLP
- Also named
- 24/7 Customer International Holdings, Ltd.
Liveperson, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Adam R. Alper · Benjamin Allen Herbert · Brian J. Arnold · Charles W. Duncan · Guy Ruttenberg · Ingrid Marie Haslund Petersen · J. Michael Huget · James Warren Beard · Jay Bayard Schiller · Joshua L. Simmons · Karen I. Boyd · Kevin Douglas Bendix · Kristen Paulene Lantz Reichenbach · Louis Lut Hin Wai · Megan Leigh McKeown · Michael Woodrow DeVries · Robert Nai-Shu Kang · Samuel Francis Blake · Sarah Elizabeth Waidelich · Sharre S. Lotfollahi
- Firm
- Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Ruttenberg IP Law, APC, Turner Boyd Seraphine, LLP
Counsel of record
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is Plaintiff 24/7 Customer, Inc.’s (“[24]7”) Opening Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 89. [24]7 and Defendant LivePerson, Inc. (“LivePerson”) propose competing constructions of four terms in U.S. Patent No. 8,396,741 (“the ’741 patent”), two terms in U.S. Patent No. 6,798,876 (“the ’876 patent”), and four terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,737,599 (“the ’599 patent”) and/or 9,077,804 (“the ’804 patent”). The Court construes the terms as set forth below.STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice(Joint) filed byLivePerson, Inc.. (Lotfollahi, Sharre) (Filed on 10/27/2023) (Entered: 10/27/2023).Absent a clear disavowal of the term’s full scope, the Court adopts the plain and ordinary meaning for the disputed term. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes the disputed claim language as follows:”
Case 4:15-cv-02897 · N.D. Cal. · closed 30 October 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 4:15-cv-02897?
4:15-cv-02897 is a patent infringement action brought by [24]7.ai, Inc. against Liveperson, Inc., filed on 22 Jun 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case closed on 30 October 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 4:15-cv-02897?
US9077804B2 (“Interaction management”), assigned to [24]7.AI, INC., currently active; US7228278B2 (“Multi-slot dialog systems and methods”), assigned to [24]7.AI, INC., currently inactive; US8737599B2 (“Interaction management”), assigned to [24]7.AI, INC.; US8396741B2 (“Mining interactions to manage customer experience throughout a customer service lifecycle”), assigned to [24]7.AI, INC.; US7747438B2 (“Multi-slot dialog systems and methods”), assigned to [24]7.AI, INC.. The record also lists Interaction management, Mining interactions to manage customer experience throughout a customer service lifecycle and Multi-slot dialog systems and methods.
How was case 4:15-cv-02897 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Plaintiff 24/7 Customer, Inc.’s (“[24]7”) Opening Claim Construction Brief, ECF No. 89. [24]7 and Defendant LivePerson, Inc. (“LivePerson”) propose competing constructions of four terms in U.S. Patent No. 8,396,741 (“the ’741 patent”), two terms in U.S. Patent No. 6,798,876 (“the ’876 patent”), and four terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,737,599 (“the ’599 patent”) and/or 9,077,804 (“the ’804 patent”). The Court construes the terms as set forth below.STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice(Joint) filed byLivePerson, Inc.. (Lotfollahi, Sharre) (Filed on 10/27/2023) (Entered: 10/27
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 4:15-cv-02897 take?
3052 calendar days, from filing on 22 Jun 2015 to closure on 30 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:15-cv-02897?
Alexander Bok-Sing Parker, Anne Elizabeth Huffsmith, Bill Trac, Carolyn Suzanne Wall, Darin Walter Snyder, David R. Eberhart, Elysa Qian Wan, Geoffrey Hurndall Yost, George Riley, Jay Choi, Jeffrey Michael Ratinoff, John V. Picone III, Mark E. Miller, Robert Kumar Jain and Susan Dana Roeder are recorded as counsel for plaintiff [24]7.ai. Adam R. Alper, Benjamin Allen Herbert, Brian J. Arnold, Charles W. Duncan, Guy Ruttenberg, Ingrid Marie Haslund Petersen, J. Michael Huget, James Warren Beard, Jay Bayard Schiller, Joshua L. Simmons, Karen I. Boyd, Kevin Douglas Bendix, Kristen Paulene Lantz Reichenbach, Louis Lut Hin Wai, Megan Leigh McKeown, Michael Woodrow DeVries, Robert Nai-Shu Kang, Samuel Francis Blake, Sarah Elizabeth Waidelich and Sharre S. Lotfollahi appear for defendant Liveperson.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:15-cv-02897 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.