Aml IP, LLC v. Cinemark USA, Inc.
Infringement action filed 17 Apr 2026 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and closed 17 Apr 2026, with US7177838B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7177838B1
- Application no.
- US09/553695
- Case no.
- 3:26-cv-01252
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Sam A. Lindsay
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 17 Apr 2026 – 17 Apr 2026
- Duration
- None recorded
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens
- 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 and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens
Methods and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce using electronic tokens are described. The electronic tokens are issued and maintained by a vendor, who also provides products and services that can be purchased or rented using the electronic tokens. The electronic tokens may be purchased from the vendor either on-line, using a credit card, or off-line, using a check, money order, purchase order. Because the vendor is the issuer of the electronic tokens, there is no need for transactions to be handled by a third party, such as a bank or other organization. This reduces the overhead involved in conducting electronic commerce, and provides the vendor with a greater amount of control. Additionally, the vendor maintains total control over the price of the electronic tokens at any time. For vendors who offer software products for sale or rental, use of electronic tokens makes a variety of rental arrangements practical, including rental for short periods of time, for a specific number of uses, or for a specific number of processings.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 13 Feb 2007
- Earliest priority
- 26 Jan 2000
- Est. expiry
- 21 Apr 2020
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LING, MARVIN T
- Classification
- G06Q40/00G06Q20/06G07F17/40G06Q20/10G06Q20/12G06Q20/22G06Q20/28G06Q20/36G06Q30/02
- Prosecution counsel
- POLSINELLI PC
- Examiner
- POINVIL, FRANTZY
Parties of record
Aml IP, LLC
- Core tech
- G06Q40/00G06Q20/06G07F17/40G06Q20/10
- Counsel
- William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Ramey LLP
Cinemark USA, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| William P. Ramey III | Aml IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, AML IP, LLC, files this notice of voluntary dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims as defendant has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 3:26-cv-01252 · N.D. Tex. · closed 17 April 2026
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 3:26-cv-01252?
3:26-cv-01252 is a patent infringement action brought by Aml IP, LLC against Cinemark USA, Inc., filed on 17 Apr 2026 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case closed on 17 April 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 3:26-cv-01252?
US7177838B1 (“Method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens”), assigned to AML IP LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens.
How was case 3:26-cv-01252 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, AML IP, LLC, files this notice of voluntary dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims as defendant has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 3:26-cv-01252 take?
0 calendar days, from filing on 17 Apr 2026 to closure on 17 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:26-cv-01252?
Chief Judge Sam A. Lindsay presided. William P. Ramey III is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Aml IP.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:26-cv-01252 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.