DataCloud Technologies, LLC v. 8×8, Inc.
Infringement action filed 13 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 26 Sep 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US7209959B1US6651063B1US8762498B2US7398298B2
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-00050
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Gregory B. Williams
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 13 Jan 2023 – 26 Sep 2023
- Duration
- 256 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Apparatus, system, and method for communicating to a network through a virtual domain · Apparatus, system, and method for communicating to a network through a virtual domain providing anonymity to a client communicating on the network · Data organization and management system and method · Remote access and retrieval of electronic files
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
Apparatus, system, and method for communicating to a network through a virtual domain providing anonymity to a client communicating on the network
The present invention is an apparatus, system and method for communicating to a network through an ad hoc virtual domain. The present invention contains a deceiver, a controller, and a forwarder through which a client communicates through. The deceiver, controller, and forwarder collectively establish the domain in which the ad hoc virtual namespace will exist. This invention allows clients to interact over a network in a fashion that is anonymous and unique to the session which the client is engaging in.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 24 Apr 2007
- Est. expiry
- 4 Apr 2020
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- CAMPBELL, DOUGLAS A. · HAMOR, ALAN B. · HELTON, MIKE D.
- Classification
- G06F15/16H04L29/06H04L29/08H04L29/12
- Prosecution counsel
- AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP
- Examiner
- NGUYEN, VAN
Data organization and management system and method
An information storage and management system pre-categorizes information in generic categories to which the information generally pertains, to facilitate organization of information with little or no effort on the part of the recipient. Providers send information to user data repositories associated with unique user destination addresses within the system. Identifiers associated with the information allow the recipient to easily assess the nature of the information and conduct further processing of the information if desired. At least one of the identifiers associated with the information is a category identifier, used to place the information in a location within the user data repository reserved for information in that given identified category. One of the ways in which the recipient can further process the information is to place the information in a custom location according to a custom category location within the user data repository. Such custom categorization can further be communicated to the provider or to a data processing station so that subsequent information from the same provider to the same recipient is automatically placed in the custom category location within the user data repository.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 18 Nov 2003
- Est. expiry
- 28 Jan 2020
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- VOROBIEV, ANDREI G.
- Classification
- G06F17/30
- Prosecution counsel
- STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
- Examiner
- VU, KIM
Also asserted in this case
2 moreThe docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
DataCloud Technologies, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F15/16H04L29/06H04L29/08H04L29/12
- Counsel
- James F. McDonough III · Jonathan R. Miller · Richard Charles Weinblatt · Stamatios Stamoulis
- Firm
- Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
8×8, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jennifer Ying · Karen Jacobs
- Firm
- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| James F. McDonough III | DataCloud Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jonathan R. Miller | DataCloud Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Richard Charles Weinblatt | DataCloud Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Stamatios Stamoulis | DataCloud Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jennifer Ying | 8×8, Inc. | Defendant |
| Karen Jacobs | 8×8, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(A)(ii), DATACLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and Defendant 8X8, INC. (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby file this Stipulation of Dismissal, dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in this action with prejudice, and all of Defendant’s counterclaims against Plaintiff without prejudice. Each of the Parties shall bear its own fees, costs, and expenses.”
Case 1:23-cv-00050 · D. Del. · closed 26 September 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 1:23-cv-00050?
1:23-cv-00050 is a patent infringement action brought by DataCloud Technologies, LLC against 8×8, Inc., filed on 13 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 26 September 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-00050?
US7209959B1 (“Apparatus, system, and method for communicating to a network through a virtual domain providing anonymity to a client communicating on the network”), assigned to DATACLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, currently inactive; US6651063B1 (“Data organization and management system and method”), assigned to DATACLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, currently inactive; US8762498B2 (“Apparatus, system, and method for communicating to a network through a virtual domain”), assigned to DATACLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; US7398298B2 (“Remote access and retrieval of electronic files”), assigned to DATACLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. The record also lists Apparatus, system, and method for communicating to a network through a virtual domain, Apparatus, system, and method for communicating to a network through a virtual domain providing anonymity to a client communicating on the network, Data organization and management system and method and Remote access and retrieval of electronic files.
How was case 1:23-cv-00050 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(A)(ii), DATACLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and Defendant 8X8, INC. (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby file this Stipulation of Dismissal, dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant in this action with prejudice, and all of Defendant’s counterclaims against Plaintiff without prejudice. Each of the Parties shall bear its own fees, costs, and expenses.”
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 1:23-cv-00050 take?
256 calendar days, from filing on 13 Jan 2023 to closure on 26 September 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00050?
Chief Judge Gregory B. Williams presided. James F. McDonough III, Jonathan R. Miller, Richard Charles Weinblatt and Stamatios Stamoulis are recorded as counsel for plaintiff DataCloud Technologies. Jennifer Ying and Karen Jacobs appear for defendant 8×8.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00050 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.