Book a demo

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

Try now
Cloud Systems Holdco IP v. CPI Security | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-03994

Cloud Systems Holdco IP, LLC v. CPI Security, Inc.

1:23-cv-03994 N.D. Ga. Closed US8909779B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 7 Sep 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and closed 22 Sep 2023, with US8909779B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8909779B2
Application no.
US13/280254
Case no.
1:23-cv-03994
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
N.D. Ga.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Georgia
Chief judge
Leigh Martin May
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
7 Sep 2023 – 22 Sep 2023
Duration
15 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Operates, and administers systems, products, and services for enabling a method for controlling an environment
Validity challenges
1 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:23-cv-03994, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. 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
US8909779B2 Active App. US13/280254

System and method for control and monitoring of multiple devices and inter-device connections

A system and method for control and monitoring of devices and inter-device connections located within an environment using a control client is provided. A user creates commands via the control client to a server that maintains a representation of the environment and the devices within the environment. The server utilizes a set of policies associated with the devices to control the devices in a default manner. The user can modify or use exceptions from the policies to achieve specific tasks other than the default tasks associated with the policy. The server may further monitor and report the current states of the devices in the environment and historical changes of the devices to monitor the environment and provide reporting for such tasks such as environment monitoring.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
9 Dec 2014
Earliest priority
8 Sep 2006
Est. expiry
16 Jan 2028
Validity challenges
1 on record90015264 · EPR
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04L29/08H04L12/24G05B15/00H04N7/15H04N21/436H04N21/442H04L29/00H04L12/28G05B15/02G06F15/173
Prosecution counsel
Ramey LLP
Examiner
IBRAHIM, MOHAMED
US8909779B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8909779B2 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

“Clerk’s Entry ofDismissalAPPROVING8 Notice ofVoluntaryDismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(1)(A)(i)”

Case 1:23-cv-03994 · N.D. Ga. · closed 22 September 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 1:23-cv-03994?

1:23-cv-03994 is a patent infringement action brought by Cloud Systems Holdco IP, LLC against CPI Security, Inc., filed on 7 Sep 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The case closed on 22 September 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-03994?

US8909779B2 (“System and method for control and monitoring of multiple devices and inter-device connections”), assigned to CLOUD SYSTEMS HOLDCO IP LLC, currently active. The record also lists Operates, and administers systems, products, and services for enabling a method for controlling an environment.

How was case 1:23-cv-03994 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Clerk’s Entry ofDismissalAPPROVING8 Notice ofVoluntaryDismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(1)(A)(i)”

What does voluntary dismissal mean?

A voluntary dismissal is one the plaintiff asks for rather than one the court imposes. Where both sides stipulate to it, it commonly signals a settlement that is not filed on the public docket.

How long did case 1:23-cv-03994 take?

15 calendar days, from filing on 7 Sep 2023 to closure on 22 September 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-03994?

Chief Judge Leigh Martin May presided. Jeffrey Kubiak and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Cloud Systems Holdco IP.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-03994 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-03994 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.