Communication Interface Technologies, LLC v. H & R Block, Inc.
Infringement action filed 30 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 27 Nov 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US6574239B1US8291010B2US8266296B2
- Case no.
- 4:23-cv-00496
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Sean D. Jordan
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 30 May 2023 – 27 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 181 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Application-layer evaluation of communications received by a mobile device · Virtual connection of a remote unit to a server
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
Virtual connection of a remote unit to a server
A method is provided for reconnecting a telephone modem with a reduced delay by reducing a time associated with retraining. A wireline communication connection is initialized by a telephone modem to train a set of parameters. The parameters are stored in a memory structure. The connection is used for communication, and is then terminated. At a later time, the connection is reestablished by accessing the parameters from memory and using them to reconnect the modem with a reduced set-up delay. Another method involves coupling to a first physical layer and establishing a session with a server, and then decoupling from the first physical layer while maintaining the session. Later, the session is resumed using a second physical layer. At least one of the physical layers involves a local interface unit that includes a landline connection to a WAN.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 3 Jun 2003
- Est. expiry
- 7 Oct 2018
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DOWLING, ERIC MORGAN · ANASTASI, MARK NICHOLAS
- Classification
- H04L29/06
- Prosecution counsel
- INTERLINK
- Examiner
- CANGIALOSI, SALVATORE
Virtual connection of a remote unit to a server
Apparatus and associated methods are provided which allow a remote user to maintain a virtual session with a server. A virtual session allows a remote and possibly mobile user to maintain a virtual presence in an office environment without actually being present. Using the present invention, a remote user can access a central application program such as an Internet service provider, a database system, an inventory system or billing system. Likewise, the remote user can receive calls and other forms of communications as though he or she were present in an office environment. A virtual session does not require a physical connection to be continuously present in order to provide a virtual connectivity. This is especially important for mobile applications where the remote user may incur long distance and/or wireless toll charges. Also, methods are presented to allow a remote unit to rapidly reconnect in a transparent and seamless way without burdening the user with the need to connect and reconnect or to upload and download information. Related methods are provided to allow the virtual session to be established, operated and maintained.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 16 Oct 2012
- Est. expiry
- 7 Oct 2018
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DOWLING, ERIC MORGAN · ANASTASI, MARK NICHOLAS
- Classification
- G06F15/16H04L29/06
- Prosecution counsel
- KOWERT, HOOD, MUNYON, RANKIN & GOETZEL, P.C.
- Examiner
- FOLLANSBEE, JOHN
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
Communication Interface Technologies, LLC
- Core tech
- H04L29/06G06F15/16
- Counsel
- Trevor James Beaty
- Firm
- Beaty Legal PLLC
H & R Block, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Trevor James Beaty | Communication Interface Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), Plaintiff Communication Interface Technologies, LLC hereby dismisses this action with prejudice. According to Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 4:23-cv-00496 · E.D. Tex. · closed 27 November 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 4:23-cv-00496?
4:23-cv-00496 is a patent infringement action brought by Communication Interface Technologies, LLC against H & R Block, Inc., filed on 30 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 27 November 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 4:23-cv-00496?
US6574239B1 (“Virtual connection of a remote unit to a server”), assigned to COMMUNICATION INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES LLC, currently inactive; US8291010B2 (“Virtual connection of a remote unit to a server”), assigned to COMMUNICATION INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES LLC, currently inactive; US8266296B2 (“Application-layer evaluation of communications received by a mobile device”), assigned to COMMUNICATION INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES LLC. The record also lists Application-layer evaluation of communications received by a mobile device and Virtual connection of a remote unit to a server.
How was case 4:23-cv-00496 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), Plaintiff Communication Interface Technologies, LLC hereby dismisses this action with prejudice. According to Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). 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 4:23-cv-00496 take?
181 calendar days, from filing on 30 May 2023 to closure on 27 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:23-cv-00496?
Chief Judge Sean D. Jordan presided. Trevor James Beaty is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Communication Interface Technologies.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:23-cv-00496 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.