Agis Software Development, LLC v. Xiaomi Corporation et al.
Infringement action filed 18 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 21 Jun 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9445251B2US8213970B2US9467838B2US9749829B2US9820123B2
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-00450
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 18 Nov 2022 – 21 Jun 2023
- Duration
- 215 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Method of utilizing forced alerts for interactive remote communications · Method to provide ad hoc and password protected digital and voice networks
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
Method to provide ad hoc and password protected digital and voice networks
A method and system includes the ability for individuals to set up an ad hoc digital and voice network easily and rapidly to allow users to coordinate their activities by eliminating the need for pre-entry of data into a web or identifying others by name, phone numbers or email. This method is especially useful for police, fire fighters, military, first responders or other emergency situations for coordinating different organizations at the scene of a disaster to elevate conventional communication problems either up and down the chain of command or cross communication between different emergency units. The method and system provides that the users are only required to enter a specific Server IP address and an ad hoc event name, a password and perhaps the name of the particular unit.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 13 Sep 2016
- Est. expiry
- 21 Sep 2024
- Validity challenges
- 9 on record90014509 · EPR · filed by JONATHAN TUMINAROIPR2018-00817 · Other · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2018-01083 · filed by GOOGLE LLCIPR2019-00523 · Other · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2018-01081 · filed by GOOGLE LLCIPR2018-01084 · Other · filed by GOOGLE LLCIPR2021-01482 · filed by WhatsApp LLCIPR2019-00524 · Other · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2018-01082 · filed by GOOGLE LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BEYER, JR., MALCOLM K. · RICE, CHRISTOPHER R.
- Classification
- H04M11/04H04W4/02H04W68/00H04M1/725H04W76/00H04W4/22H04W24/00H04L29/06H04L29/08G06F3/0484G06F3/0482H04W12/02H04W12/08H04W84/18H04W64/00H04W4/08H04W76/02H04W4/10H04M1/2745H04M1/724H04M1/72406H04M1/72418H04M1/7243H04M1/72457H04M1/72469H04W4/90
- Prosecution counsel
- Fabricant, Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP
- Examiner
- OBAYANJU, OMONIYI
Method of utilizing forced alerts for interactive remote communications
The system and method having a specialized software application on a personal computer or a PDA/cell phone that that enables a participant to force an automatic acknowledgement and a manual response to a text or voice message from other participants within the same network. Each participant’s PDA/cell phone includes a force message alert software application program for both creating and processing these forced message alerts. The system and method enabled by the force message alert software application program provides the ability to (a) allow an operator to create and transmit a forced message alert from a sender PDA/cell phone to one or more recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones within the communication network; (b) automatically transmit an acknowledgement of receipt to the sender PDA cell phone upon the receipt of the forced message alert; (c) periodically resend the message to the recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones that have not sent an acknowledgement; (d) provide an indication of which recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones have acknowledged the forced message alert; (e) provide a manual response list on the display of the recipient PC and PDA/cell phone’s display that can only be cleared by manually transmitting a response; and (f) provide an indication on the sender PDA/cell phone of the status and content the manual responses.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 3 Jul 2012
- Earliest priority
- 18 Apr 2006
- Est. expiry
- 23 Sep 2025
- Validity challenges
- 6 on recordIPR2018-00821 · Other · filed by APPLE INC.90014507 · EPR · filed by JONATHAN TUMINAROIPR2023-00056 · Patentability · filed by CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESSIPR2018-01079 · Other · filed by GOOGLE LLCIPR2019-00485 · Other · filed by HTC CorporationIPR2019-00411 · filed by APPLE INC.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BEYER, MALCOLM K.
- Classification
- H04W4/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Malin Haley DiMaggio & Bowen, P.A.
- Examiner
- CORSARO, NICK
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
Agis Software Development, LLC
- Core tech
- H04M11/04H04W4/02H04W68/00H04M1/725
- Counsel
- Alfred Ross Fabricant · Enrique William Iturralde · Justin Kurt Truelove · Justine Minseon Park · Peter Lambrianakos · Vincent J. Rubino III
- Firm
- Fabricant LLP, Fabricant LLP (NY), Fabricant LLP (Rye), Truelove Law Firm
Xiaomi Corporation
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Siddhesh Vishnu Pandit
- Firm
- Maier & Maier PLLC
- Also named
- Xiaomi HK, Ltd. · Xiaomi, Inc. · Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
Counsel of record
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi H.K. Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd, and Xiaomi Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) With Prejudice (the “Motion). (Dkt. No. 13.) In the Motion, the parties request that the Court dismiss all claims asserted against Defendants by Plaintiff with prejudice because all matters in controversy have been compromised and settled. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court is of the opinion that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain.”
Case 2:22-cv-00450 · E.D. Tex. · closed 21 June 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 2:22-cv-00450?
2:22-cv-00450 is a patent infringement action brought by Agis Software Development, LLC against Xiaomi Corporation, filed on 18 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 21 June 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:22-cv-00450?
US9445251B2 (“Method to provide ad hoc and password protected digital and voice networks”), assigned to AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, currently inactive; US8213970B2 (“Method of utilizing forced alerts for interactive remote communications”), assigned to AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, currently inactive; US9467838B2 (“Method to provide ad hoc and password protected digital and voice networks”), assigned to AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC; US9749829B2 (“Method to provide ad hoc and password protected digital and voice networks”), assigned to AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC; US9820123B2 (“Method to provide ad hoc and password protected digital and voice networks”), assigned to AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC. The record also lists Method of utilizing forced alerts for interactive remote communications and Method to provide ad hoc and password protected digital and voice networks.
How was case 2:22-cv-00450 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi H.K. Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd, and Xiaomi Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) With Prejudice (the “Motion). (Dkt. No. 13.) In the Motion, the parties request that the Court dismiss all claims asserted against Defendants by Plaintiff with prejudice because all matters in controversy have been compromised and settled. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court is of the opinion that it sh
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 2:22-cv-00450 take?
215 calendar days, from filing on 18 Nov 2022 to closure on 21 June 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-00450?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Alfred Ross Fabricant, Enrique William Iturralde, Justin Kurt Truelove, Justine Minseon Park, Peter Lambrianakos and Vincent J. Rubino III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Agis Software Development. Siddhesh Vishnu Pandit appears for defendant Xiaomi.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-00450 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.