Book a demo

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

Try now
Ask Sydney v. Amazon.com | Patent Lawsuit 6:23-cv-00108

Ask Sydney, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.

6:23-cv-00108 W.D. Tex. Closed 2 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 13 Feb 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 14 Aug 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed in part.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US10474705B2US9323786B2
Case no.
6:23-cv-00108
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Xavier Rodriguez
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
13 Feb 2023 – 14 Aug 2023
Duration
182 days
Basis of termination
Case Dismissed in Part
Products & marks
Iterative image search algorithm informed by continuous human-machine input feedback · System and computer method for visually guiding a user to a current interest
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:23-cv-00108, 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
US10474705B2 Active App. US16/162024

Iterative image search algorithm informed by continuous human-machine input feedback

System and computer-implemented method of analyzing tags associated with a sequence of images presented to a user to present a current interest of the user is disclosed. An image from among a plurality of images is presented on an electronic display. The image is associated with a set of tags. An input is received indicating a user’s preference for the image. A plurality of tags is processed based on the preference and the set of tags to determine a next set of tags from the plurality of tags. A next image is determined from the plurality of images based on the next set of tags. The next image represents a physical object, different from a physical object represented by the previous image. A sequence of images is generated by repeating the above process with the next image in place of the previous image for present a user’s current interest.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
12 Nov 2019
Earliest priority
15 Aug 2014
Est. expiry
14 Aug 2035
Validity challenges
1 on record90015256 · EPR
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06Q30/00G06F16/33H04L29/08G06F3/0484G06Q30/06G06F16/51G06F16/58H04W4/021
Prosecution counsel
ICE MILLER LLP
Examiner
POND, ROBERT M
US10474705B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10474705B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US9323786B2 Active App. US14/827205

System and computer method for visually guiding a user to a current interest

System and computer-implemented method of analyzing tags associated with a sequence of images presented to a user to present a current interest of the user is disclosed. An image from among a plurality of images is presented on an electronic display. The image is associated with a set of tags. An input is received indicating a user’s preference for the image. A plurality of tags is processed based on the preference and the set of tags to determine a next set of tags from the plurality of tags. A next image is determined from the plurality of images based on the next set of tags. The next image represents a physical object, different from a physical object represented by the previous image. A sequence of images is generated by repeating the above process with the next image in place of the previous image for present a user’s current interest.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
26 Apr 2016
Earliest priority
15 Aug 2014
Est. expiry
14 Aug 2035
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06Q30/00H04L29/08G06F17/30G06F3/0484G06Q30/06H04W4/021
Prosecution counsel
ICE MILLER LLP
Examiner
POND, ROB
US9323786B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9323786B2 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

“Defendant Amazon’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 108-11), case number 6-23-cv-108, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is denied as to its invalidity contentions, but granted as to its allegations that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim of direct infringement of the ’786 and ’705 Patents. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED. Defendant Meta’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 112-11), case number 6-23-cv-112, is DENIED as to both the invalidity and infringement allegations. Defendant Microsoft’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 113-10), case number 6-23-cv-113, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Microsoft are DISMISSED. It is so ORDERED.”

Case 6:23-cv-00108 · W.D. Tex. · closed 14 August 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 6:23-cv-00108?

6:23-cv-00108 is a patent infringement action brought by Ask Sydney, LLC against Amazon.com, Inc., filed on 13 Feb 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 14 August 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 6:23-cv-00108?

US10474705B2 (“Iterative image search algorithm informed by continuous human-machine input feedback”), assigned to EPSTEIN, SYDNEY NICOLE, currently active; US9323786B2 (“System and computer method for visually guiding a user to a current interest”), assigned to ASK SYDNEY, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Iterative image search algorithm informed by continuous human-machine input feedback and System and computer method for visually guiding a user to a current interest.

How was case 6:23-cv-00108 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed in part. The termination text reads: “Defendant Amazon’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 108-11), case number 6-23-cv-108, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The motion is denied as to its invalidity contentions, but granted as to its allegations that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim of direct infringement of the ’786 and ’705 Patents. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED. Defendant Meta’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 112-11), case number 6-23-cv-112, is DENIED as to both the invalidity and infringement allegations. Defendant Microsoft’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 113-10), case number 6-23-cv-113, is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims aga

How long did case 6:23-cv-00108 take?

182 calendar days, from filing on 13 Feb 2023 to closure on 14 August 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00108?

Chief Judge Xavier Rodriguez presided. Kyril Vladimir Talanov and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Ask Sydney. Ankur Vijay Desai and Jennifer Librach Nall appear for defendant Amazon.com.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:23-cv-00108 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00108 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.