Authentixx, LLC v. Medianova Internet Hizmetleri VE Ticaret AS
Infringement action filed 8 Sep 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 26 May 2026, with US10355863B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10355863B2
- Application no.
- US15/835816
- Case no.
- 2:25-cv-00942
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 8 Sep 2025 – 26 May 2026
- Duration
- 260 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- System and method for authenticating electronic content
- 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
System and method for authenticating electronic content
The present invention provides for an authenticity marker to be embedded within web page and/or email content which allows a user to validate that the content originates from the true source of the content and is not merely a copy. The method includes a user requesting content in the form of a web page and/or email from a server using a web browser or email client. The server receives the request, retrieves the content and forwards it to an authentication server. The authentication server inserts into the retrieved content a unique fractal icon and/or information only known between the owner of the content and the user.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 16 Jul 2019
- Earliest priority
- 9 Sep 1999
- Est. expiry
- 6 Sep 2020
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BISHOP, FRED · DOMENICA, DANIELLE R. · MENDIVIL, VICKI R. · VILLALOBOS, HERMES H.
- Classification
- H04L9/32G06F21/64H04L29/06G06F21/62H04L9/14G06F21/33G09C5/00
- Prosecution counsel
- MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
- Examiner
- SCHMIDT, KARI L
Parties of record
Authentixx, LLC
- Core tech
- H04L9/32G06F21/64H04L29/06G06F21/62
- Counsel
- Isaac Phillip Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
Medianova Internet Hizmetleri VE Ticaret AS
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Authentixx, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Authentixx LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 6.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned case is voluntarily dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Id. at 1.) In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief in the abovecaptioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 2:25-cv-00942 · E.D. Tex. · closed 26 May 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 2:25-cv-00942?
2:25-cv-00942 is a patent infringement action brought by Authentixx, LLC against Medianova Internet Hizmetleri VE Ticaret AS, filed on 8 Sep 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 26 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:25-cv-00942?
US10355863B2 (“System and method for authenticating electronic content”), assigned to AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists System and method for authenticating electronic content.
How was case 2:25-cv-00942 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Authentixx LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 6.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned case is voluntarily dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Id. at 1.) In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief in the abovecaptioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attor
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 2:25-cv-00942 take?
260 calendar days, from filing on 8 Sep 2025 to closure on 26 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-00942?
Isaac Phillip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Authentixx.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-00942 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.