Book a demo

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

Try now
Cedar Lane Technologies v. Speechify | Patent Lawsuit 1:26-cv-00031

Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Speechify, Inc.

1:26-cv-00031 D. Del. Closed US8438485B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 12 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 13 Apr 2026, with US8438485B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8438485B2
Application no.
US12/726230
Case no.
1:26-cv-00031
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Chief judge
Jennifer L. Hall
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
12 Jan 2026 – 13 Apr 2026
Duration
91 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed with Prejudice
Products & marks
System, method, and apparatus for generating, customizing, distributing, and presenting an interactive audio publication
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:26-cv-00031, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. 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
US8438485B2 Active App. US12/726230

System, method, and apparatus for generating, customizing, distributing, and presenting an interactive audio publication

Systems, methods, and apparatuses for generating, customizing, distributing, and presenting an interactive audio publication to a user are provided. A plurality of text-based and/or speech-based content items is converted into voice-navigable interactive audio content items that include segmented audio data, embedded visual content, and accompanying metadata. An audio publication is generated by associating one or more audio content items with one or more audio publication sections, and generating metadata that defines the audio publication structure. Assembled audio publications may be used to generate one or more new custom audio publications for a user by utilizing one or more user-defined custom audio publication templates. Audio publications are delivered to a user for presentation on an enabled presentation system. The user is enabled to navigate and interact with the audio publication, using voice commands and/or a button interface, in a manner similar to browsing visually-oriented content.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
7 May 2013
Earliest priority
17 Mar 2009
Est. expiry
28 Dec 2030
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F3/16
Prosecution counsel
WEAVER IP L.L.C.
Examiner
TRAN, TUYETLIEN
US8438485B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8438485B2 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

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties hereby stipulate to dismiss this action with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”

Case 1:26-cv-00031 · D. Del. · closed 13 April 2026
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 1:26-cv-00031?

1:26-cv-00031 is a patent infringement action brought by Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. against Speechify, Inc., filed on 12 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 13 April 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 1:26-cv-00031?

US8438485B2 (“System, method, and apparatus for generating, customizing, distributing, and presenting an interactive audio publication”), assigned to UNEWS, LLC, currently active. The record also lists System, method, and apparatus for generating, customizing, distributing, and presenting an interactive audio publication.

How was case 1:26-cv-00031 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the parties hereby stipulate to dismiss this action with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”

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 1:26-cv-00031 take?

91 calendar days, from filing on 12 Jan 2026 to closure on 13 April 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:26-cv-00031?

Chief Judge Jennifer L. Hall presided. Brian E. Lutness is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cedar Lane Technologies. Francis DiGiovanni, PHV appears for defendant Speechify.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:26-cv-00031 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:26-cv-00031 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.