Buffalo Patents, LLC v. TCL Technology Group, Corp. et al.
Infringement action filed 27 Apr 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 6 Mar 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US6904405B2US6856086B2US8204737B2
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-00422
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 27 Apr 2022 – 6 Mar 2023
- Duration
- 313 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Hybrid display device · Message recognition using shared language model
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
Message recognition using shared language model
Certain disclosed methods and systems perform multiple different types of message recognition using a shared language model. Message recognition of a first type is performed responsive to a first type of message input (e.g., speech), to provide text data in accordance with both the shared language model and a first model specific to the first type of message recognition (e.g., an acoustic model). Message recognition of a second type is performed responsive to a second type of message input (e.g., handwriting), to provide text data in accordance with both the shared language model and a second model specific to the second type of message recognition (e.g., a model that determines basic units of handwriting conveyed by freehand input). Accuracy of both such message recognizers can be improved by user correction of misrecognition by either one of them. Numerous other methods and systems are also disclosed.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 7 Jun 2005
- Earliest priority
- 14 Jul 2000
- Est. expiry
- 17 Oct 2021
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2023-01386 · Patentability · filed by Google LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SUOMINEN, EDWIN A.
- Classification
- G10L15/22G10L15/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
- Examiner
- DORVIL, RICHEMOND
Hybrid display device
A display includes a front panel and a back panel with a light control material in between. One of the panels includes a rigid substrate, for example made of glass or rigid plastic. The other of the panels includes a flexible substrate, for example made of a flexible plastic film. The panel with the flexible substrate may be made by a roll-to-roll process, with various fabrication operations formed while the flexible substrate is still part of a web of material. The panel with the rigid substrate may be separately fabricated, then combined with the other panel on the web through a pick and place operation that accurately locates the front panel relative to the back panel. The display may be any of a variety of displays, such as liquid crystal displays (LCDs), and electroluminescent displays, such as polymer light emitting devices (PLEDs) and organic light emitting devices (OLEDs).
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 15 Feb 2005
- Est. expiry
- 29 Mar 2022
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- GRACE, ANTHONY J. · DRAIN, KIERAN F. · SASAKI, YUKIHIKO
- Classification
- G02F1/13G02F1/1341H01L27/32H01L27/28G02F1/1333H01L51/52H01L51/56H01L51/50H10K59/17
- Prosecution counsel
- SCHWABE WILLIAMSON& WYATT
- Examiner
- PATEL, ASHOK
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Buffalo Patents, LLC
- Core tech
- G10L15/22G10L15/00G02F1/13G02F1/1341
- Counsel
- C. Ryan Pinckney · Larry D. Thompson · Matthew Antonelli · Rehan M. Safiullah · Zachariah Harrington
- Firm
- Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP
TCL Technology Group, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
- Also named
- TCL Electronics Holdings Limited · TCL Communication, Ltd. · TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| C. Ryan Pinckney | Buffalo Patents, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Larry D. Thompson | Buffalo Patents, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Matthew Antonelli | Buffalo Patents, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Rehan M. Safiullah | Buffalo Patents, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Zachariah Harrington | Buffalo Patents, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“This matter came before the Court upon the Unopposed Motion to Dismiss the TCL Defendants filed by Plaintiff Buffalo Patents, LLC (“Buffalo Patents”). Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby ORDERED that all claims asserted by Buffalo Patents against Defendants TCL Technology Group Corporation, TCL Electronics Holdings Limited, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited, and TCL Communication Limited (collectively, “TCL”) in this action are hereby dismissed with prejudice, subject to the Court’s reservation of jurisdiction over Buffalo Patents and TCL to enforce the settlement agreement between Buffalo Patents and TCL. It is further ORDERED that Buffalo Patents and TCL shall bear their own costs, expenses, and legal fees in this case.”
Case 6:22-cv-00422 · W.D. Tex. · closed 6 March 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 6:22-cv-00422?
6:22-cv-00422 is a patent infringement action brought by Buffalo Patents, LLC against TCL Technology Group, Corp., filed on 27 Apr 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 6 March 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 6:22-cv-00422?
US6904405B2 (“Message recognition using shared language model”), assigned to BUFFALO PATENTS, LLC, currently inactive; US6856086B2 (“Hybrid display device”), assigned to BUFFALO PATENTS, LLC, currently inactive; US8204737B2 (“Message recognition using shared language model”), assigned to BUFFALO PATENTS, LLC. The record also lists Hybrid display device and Message recognition using shared language model.
How was case 6:22-cv-00422 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “This matter came before the Court upon the Unopposed Motion to Dismiss the TCL Defendants filed by Plaintiff Buffalo Patents, LLC (“Buffalo Patents”). Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby ORDERED that all claims asserted by Buffalo Patents against Defendants TCL Technology Group Corporation, TCL Electronics Holdings Limited, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited, and TCL Communication Limited (collectively, “TCL”) in this action are hereby dismissed with prejudice, subject to the Court’s reservation of jurisdiction over Buffalo Patents and TCL to e
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 6:22-cv-00422 take?
313 calendar days, from filing on 27 Apr 2022 to closure on 6 March 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-00422?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. C. Ryan Pinckney, Larry D. Thompson, Matthew Antonelli, Rehan M. Safiullah and Zachariah Harrington are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Buffalo Patents.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-00422 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.