Book a demo

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

Try now
Buffalo Patents v. TCL Technology Group et al. | Patent Lawsuit 6:22-cv-00422

Buffalo Patents, LLC v. TCL Technology Group, Corp. et al.

6:22-cv-00422 W.D. Tex. Closed 3 patents
Get a prior-art report

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 recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

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
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:22-cv-00422, 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
US6904405B2 Inactive App. US10/061052

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.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
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
Classification
G10L15/22G10L15/00
Examiner
DORVIL, RICHEMOND
US6904405B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US6904405B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US6856086B2 Inactive App. US09/961846

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).

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
15 Feb 2005
Est. expiry
29 Mar 2022
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G02F1/13G02F1/1341H01L27/32H01L27/28G02F1/1333H01L51/52H01L51/56H01L51/50H10K59/17
Prosecution counsel
SCHWABE WILLIAMSON& WYATT
Examiner
PATEL, ASHOK
US6856086B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US6856086B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

1 more

The docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.

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

“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
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 6:22-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.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:22-cv-00422 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.