Infringement action filed 7 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 10 Apr 2023, with US6876979B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Systems and methods are provided for supporting electronic commerce in an environment in which multiple service providers each have associated vendors and in which a user may maintain an account at a service provider that is different from the service provider associated with the vendor from which a user makes an on-line purchase. Both tangible products and electronic content products may be sold using the system. A bridge computer may be used to facilitate interactions between service providers. The bridge computer may be used to implement service charge fees, to reimburse service providers for credit card transaction fees, to reimburse service providers with appropriate referral fees, and to otherwise support operation of the system.
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DISMISSAL Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii), the Plaintiff, AML IP, LLC hereby files this notice of dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims. The Plaintiff stipulates and agree that the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITH PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent and each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees."
Case 6:22-cv-01262 · W.D. Tex. · closed 10 April 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
6:22-cv-01262 is a patent infringement action brought by Aml IP, LLC against Airbnb, Inc., filed on 7 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 10 April 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:22-cv-01262?
US6876979B2 (“Electronic commerce bridge system”), assigned to AML IP LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Electronic commerce bridge system.
How was case 6:22-cv-01262 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: "PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF DISMISSAL Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii), the Plaintiff, AML IP, LLC hereby files this notice of dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims. The Plaintiff stipulates and agree that the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITH PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent and each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees."
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 6:22-cv-01262 take?
124 calendar days, from filing on 7 Dec 2022 to closure on 10 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-01262?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Aml IP. Karen I. Boyd and Melissa Richards Smith appear for defendant Airbnb.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:22-cv-01262 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-01262 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.
