Aml IP, LLC v. The Cato, Corp.
Infringement action filed 15 Dec 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 19 Dec 2023, with US6876979B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6876979B2
- Application no.
- US10/217871
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-00602
- 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
- 15 Dec 2023 – 19 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 4 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Systems, Products, and Pervices that facilitate purchases from a user using a bridge computer
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
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
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.
- 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
- Inventors
- LING, MARVIN T.
- Classification
- G06Q30/00G06Q20/10G06Q30/06
- Prosecution counsel
- POLSINELLI PC
- Examiner
- CHILCOT, RICHARD
Parties of record
Aml IP, LLC
- Core tech
- G06Q30/00G06Q20/10G06Q30/06
- Counsel
- William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Ramey LLP
The Cato, Corp.
- 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“Before the Court is Plaintiff AML IP, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (the “Notice”). (Dkt. No. 5.) In the Notice, Plaintiff dismisses the above-captioned action against Defendant Cato Corporation (“Defendant”) without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that each party bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case.”
Case 2:23-cv-00602 · E.D. Tex. · closed 19 December 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 2:23-cv-00602?
2:23-cv-00602 is a patent infringement action brought by Aml IP, LLC against The Cato, Corp., filed on 15 Dec 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 19 December 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-00602?
US6876979B2 (“Electronic commerce bridge system”), assigned to AML IP LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Systems, Products, and Pervices that facilitate purchases from a user using a bridge computer.
How was case 2:23-cv-00602 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Plaintiff AML IP, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (the “Notice”). (Dkt. No. 5.) In the Notice, Plaintiff dismisses the above-captioned action against Defendant Cato Corporation (“Defendant”) without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that each party bear its own costs, attorneys’ f
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 2:23-cv-00602 take?
4 calendar days, from filing on 15 Dec 2023 to closure on 19 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00602?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. William P. Ramey III is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Aml IP.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00602 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.