Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Aml IP v. Airbnb | Patent Lawsuit 6:22-cv-01262

Aml IP, LLC v. Airbnb, Inc.

6:22-cv-01262 W.D. Tex. Closed US6876979B2
Get a prior-art report

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.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US6876979B2
Application no.
US10/217871
Case no.
6:22-cv-01262
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
7 Dec 2022 – 10 Apr 2023
Duration
124 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Electronic commerce bridge system
Validity challenges
1 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:22-cv-01262, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US6876979B2 Inactive App. US10/217871

Electronic commerce bridge system

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.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
5 Apr 2005
Est. expiry
24 Mar 2023
Validity challenges
1 on recordIPR2022-00319 · Other · filed by Askeladden L.L.C.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06Q30/00G06Q20/10G06Q30/06
Prosecution counsel
POLSINELLI PC
Examiner
CHILCOT, RICHARD
US6876979B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US6876979B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

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.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 6:22-cv-01262?

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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.