Infringement action filed 8 Jul 2021 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and closed 18 Jan 2023, with 8 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
A method of initiating a call to a callee using a mobile telephone involves: receiving, from a user of the mobile telephone, a callee identifier associated with the callee; transmitting an access code request message to an access server, the access code request message including the callee identifier; receiving an access code reply message from the access server in response to the access code request message, the access code reply message including an access code different from the callee identifier and associated with the callee identifier; and initiating a call with the mobile telephone using the access code to identify the callee.
14 on recordIPR2022-01180 · Other · filed by Amazon.com, Inc.IPR2023-00640 · Patentability · filed by T-MOBILE USA, INCIPR2022-01074 · Patentability · filed by GOOGLE LLCIPR2023-00649 · Patentability · filed by GOOGLE LLCIPR2022-01075 · Patentability · filed by GOOGLE LLCIPR2023-00650 · Patentability · filed by GOOGLE LLCIPR2022-01393 · Other · filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.90019318 · EPRIPR2022-01392 · Patentability · filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.IPR2021-01441 · Patentability · filed by AMPEREX TECHNOLOGY LIMITEDIPR2022-01181 · Patentability · filed by Amazon.com, Inc.IPR2022-01235 · Other · filed by Meta Platforms, Inc.IPR2022-01234 · Patentability · filed by Meta Platforms, Inc.IPR2023-00641 · Patentability · filed by T-MOBILE USA, INC
A process and apparatus to facilitate communication between callers and callees in a system comprising a plurality of nodes with which callers and callees are associated is disclosed. In response to initiation of a call by a calling subscriber, a caller identifier and a callee identifier are received. Call classification criteria associated with the caller identifier are used to classify the call as a public network call or a private network call. A routing message identifying an address, on the private network, associated with the callee is produced when the call is classified as a private network call and a routing message identifying a gateway to the public network is produced when the call is classified as a public network call.
The docket lists 8 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 6 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
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 Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiffs Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Verizon Services Corp., and Verizon Business Network Services LLC hereby voluntarily dismiss without prejudice this litigation against Defendant VoIP-Pal.com, Inc."
Case 3:21-cv-05275 · N.D. Cal. · closed 18 January 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.
3:21-cv-05275 is a patent infringement action brought by Cellco Partnership, (dba Verizon Wireless) against Voip-Pal.com, Inc., filed on 8 Jul 2021 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case closed on 18 January 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 3:21-cv-05275?
US10880721B2 (“Mobile gateway”), assigned to VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., currently active; US9826002B2 (“Producing routing messages for voice over IP communications”), assigned to VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., currently active; US8630234B2 (“Mobile gateway”), assigned to VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.; US9948549B2 (“Producing routing messages for voice over IP communications”), assigned to VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.; US9179005B2 (“Producing routing messages for voice over IP communications”), assigned to VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.; US9537762B2 (“Producing routing messages for voice over IP communications”), assigned to VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.; US8542815B2 (“Producing routing messages for voice over IP communications”), assigned to VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.; US9813330B2 (“Producing routing messages for voice over IP communications”), assigned to VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.. The record also lists Mobile gateway.
How was case 3:21-cv-05275 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: "Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiffs Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Verizon Services Corp., and Verizon Business Network Services LLC hereby voluntarily dismiss without prejudice this litigation against Defendant VoIP-Pal.com, Inc."
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 3:21-cv-05275 take?
559 calendar days, from filing on 8 Jul 2021 to closure on 18 January 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:21-cv-05275?
Frank C. Cimino Jr., Megan Sunkel Woodworth and William Andrew Hector are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cellco Partnership, (dba Verizon Wireless). Lewis Emery Hudnell III and Nicolas Spiros Gikkas appear for defendant Voip-Pal.com.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 3:21-cv-05275 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:21-cv-05275 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.
