Buffalo Patents, LLC v. LogMeIn, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 11 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 10 Aug 2023, with US6839417B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6839417B2
- Application no.
- US10/238401
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-01333
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Maryellen Noreika
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 11 Oct 2022 – 10 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 303 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Communications terminal, a system and a method for internet/network telephony · Method and apparatus for improved conference call management
- 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
Method and apparatus for improved conference call management
A method and apparatus are disclosed to allow individuals to initiate, join, manage, and participant in a conference call. Members of a community can meet and collaborate over telephones, especially cellular telephones, or computer workstations, in a way that is freeform or prescribed, automatic or moderated, spontaneous or scheduled, unassisted, and selectably anonymous. The invention provides broadly customizable degrees of collective and individual organizational control, and provides social safeguards to minimize disruptions by unruly participants.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 4 Jan 2005
- Est. expiry
- 8 Dec 2022
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record90019173 · EPR · filed by UNIFIED PATENT, LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- WEISMAN, JORDAN K. · REDMANN, WILLIAM G. · LEE, BRIAN ELAN
- Classification
- H04M3/42H04M3/56
- Prosecution counsel
- Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
- Examiner
- SMITH, CREIGHTON
Parties of record
Buffalo Patents, LLC
- Core tech
- H04M3/42H04M3/56
- Counsel
- Brian E. Farnan · Larry D. Thompson · Matthew J. Antonelli · Michael J. Farnan · Rehan M. Safiullah · Zachariah S. Harrington
- Firm
- Farnan LLP
LogMeIn, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Bryan S. Conley · Karen Elizabeth Keller · Suresh S. Rav
- Firm
- Shaw Keller LLP
- Also named
- GoTo Technologies USA, Inc. · GoTo Group, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Brian E. Farnan | Buffalo Patents, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Larry D. Thompson | Buffalo Patents, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Matthew J. Antonelli | Buffalo Patents, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Michael J. Farnan | Buffalo Patents, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Rehan M. Safiullah | Buffalo Patents, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Zachariah S. Harrington | Buffalo Patents, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Bryan S. Conley | LogMeIn, Inc. | Defendant |
| Karen Elizabeth Keller | LogMeIn, Inc. | Defendant |
| Suresh S. Rav | LogMeIn, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“CAME ON THIS DAY for consideration of the Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice of all claims and counterclaims asserted between Plaintiff Buffalo Patents, LLC (“Buffalo Patents”) and Defendants LogMeIn, Inc., GoTo Group, Inc., and GoTo Technologies USA, Inc. f/k/a LogMeIn USA, Inc. (“GoTo”) in this case, and the Court being of the opinion that said motion should be GRANTED, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all claims asserted in this suit between Buffalo Patents and GoTo are hereby dismissed with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees and costs are to be borne by the party that incurred them. SO ORDERED this 10th day of August 2023.”
Case 1:22-cv-01333 · D. Del. · closed 10 August 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 1:22-cv-01333?
1:22-cv-01333 is a patent infringement action brought by Buffalo Patents, LLC against LogMeIn, Inc., filed on 11 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 10 August 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-01333?
US6839417B2 (“Method and apparatus for improved conference call management”), assigned to BUFFALO PATENTS, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Communications terminal, a system and a method for internet/network telephony and Method and apparatus for improved conference call management.
How was case 1:22-cv-01333 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “CAME ON THIS DAY for consideration of the Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice of all claims and counterclaims asserted between Plaintiff Buffalo Patents, LLC (“Buffalo Patents”) and Defendants LogMeIn, Inc., GoTo Group, Inc., and GoTo Technologies USA, Inc. f/k/a LogMeIn USA, Inc. (“GoTo”) in this case, and the Court being of the opinion that said motion should be GRANTED, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all claims asserted in this suit between Buffalo Patents and GoTo are hereby dismissed with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees and cos
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 1:22-cv-01333 take?
303 calendar days, from filing on 11 Oct 2022 to closure on 10 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-01333?
Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. Brian E. Farnan, Larry D. Thompson, Matthew J. Antonelli, Michael J. Farnan, Rehan M. Safiullah and Zachariah S. Harrington are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Buffalo Patents. Bryan S. Conley, Karen Elizabeth Keller and Suresh S. Rav appear for defendant LogMeIn.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-01333 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.