Aml IP, LLC v. Academy
Infringement action filed 30 Jul 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 19 Jul 2023, with US7177979B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7177979B2
- Application no.
- US10/674763
- Case no.
- 6:21-cv-00789
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 30 Jul 2021 – 19 Jul 2023
- Duration
- 719 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Method for preventing data loss due to repeated writes to a given track on a magnetic disk drive
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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 for preventing data loss due to repeated writes to a given track on a magnetic disk drive
Where a leakage magnetic field deletes data on adjacent tracks gradually, such deletion is compensated so as to prevent data errors from occurring. A magnetic disk device includes one or more magnetic disks, one or more magnetic heads, and a write and read circuit for writing or reading data, and writes or reads the data on tracks on the magnetic disks. The number of writes of the data on a given track is acquired. If the number of writes reaches a predetermined number, the data on the tracks adjacent to a given track is read out once and, then, the data is rewritten on the adjacent tracks. Further, when the data is written on the tracks, the data is written on alternate physical tracks and every other track is skipped, and after the data is written on half of all tracks, the data is written on the skipped tracks.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 13 Feb 2007
- Earliest priority
- 11 Mar 2003
- Est. expiry
- 7 Jan 2024
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KUWAMURA, NOBUHIRO
- Classification
- G06F12/00G11B15/04G11B5/09G11B5/02G11B19/04G11B20/10
- Prosecution counsel
- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP – West Coast
- Examiner
- KIM, MATTHEW
Parties of record
Aml IP, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Kyril Vladimir Talanov · William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Ramey LLP
Academy
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- David Brandon Conrad · Lance E. Wyatt · Neil J. McNabnay
- Firm
- Fish & Richardson LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Kyril Vladimir Talanov | Aml IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| William P. Ramey III | Aml IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| David Brandon Conrad | Academy | Defendant |
| Lance E. Wyatt | Academy | Defendant |
| Neil J. McNabnay | Academy | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii), the Plaintiff, AML IP, LLC and Defendant, Academy, Ltd. d/b/a Academy Sports + Outdoors, hereby jointly stipulate the dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s counterclaims. The Parties further jointly stipulate and agree that the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITH PREJUDICE. The Parties further jointly stipulate and agree that the dismissal of Defendant’s counterclaims shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Parties further jointly stipulate and agree that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 6:21-cv-00789 · W.D. Tex. · closed 19 July 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 6:21-cv-00789?
6:21-cv-00789 is a patent infringement action brought by Aml IP, LLC against Academy, filed on 30 Jul 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 19 July 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:21-cv-00789?
US7177979B2 (“Method for preventing data loss due to repeated writes to a given track on a magnetic disk drive”), assigned to HITACHI GLOBAL STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES JAPAN, LTD., currently inactive. The record also lists Method for preventing data loss due to repeated writes to a given track on a magnetic disk drive.
How was case 6:21-cv-00789 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii), the Plaintiff, AML IP, LLC and Defendant, Academy, Ltd. d/b/a Academy Sports + Outdoors, hereby jointly stipulate the dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims and Defendant’s counterclaims. The Parties further jointly stipulate and agree that the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITH PREJUDICE. The Parties further jointly stipulate and agree that the dismissal of Defendant’s counterclaims shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Parties further jointly stipulate and agree that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’
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 6:21-cv-00789 take?
719 calendar days, from filing on 30 Jul 2021 to closure on 19 July 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:21-cv-00789?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Kyril Vladimir Talanov and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Aml IP. David Brandon Conrad, Lance E. Wyatt and Neil J. McNabnay appear for defendant Academy.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:21-cv-00789 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.