Book a demo

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

Try now
DataCloud Technologies v. Bandwidth | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-00109

DataCloud Technologies, LLC v. Bandwidth, Inc.

1:23-cv-00109 D. Del. Closed 4 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 27 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 8 Aug 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
1:23-cv-00109
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
27 Jan 2023 – 8 Aug 2023
Duration
193 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed with Prejudice
Products & marks
Bandwidth Dashboard and the 911 Access Dashboard · Bandwidth rate limiting system for accounts with Messaging APIs · website infrastructure and its employ of TLS
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:23-cv-00109, 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
US7209959B1 Inactive App. US09/542858

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.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
24 Apr 2007
Est. expiry
4 Apr 2020
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F15/16H04L29/06H04L29/08H04L29/12
Prosecution counsel
AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP
Examiner
NGUYEN, VAN
US7209959B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7209959B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
USRE44723E1 Inactive App. US11/818544

Regulating file access rates according to file type

File access rates of processes are regulated according to file type. An association table stores entries associating processes to be regulated with specific access rates for various file types. System calls that access files are intercepted, and a system call wrapper executes. The system call wrapper determines the type of file that is being accessed by the process. The system call wrapper examines the association table in order to determine if the calling process is associated with an access rate for the file type being accessed. If so, the system call wrapper regulates access to the file according to the appropriate rate.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
21 Jan 2014
Est. expiry
16 May 2020
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F17/30G06F15/16
Prosecution counsel
PERKINS COIE LLP
Examiner
MOFIZ, APU
USRE44723E1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
USRE44723E1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

2 more

The docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.

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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(A)(ii), DATACLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and Defendant BANDWIDTH INC. (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby file this Stipulation of Dismissal, dismissing all claims in this action with prejudice.1 Each of the Parties shall bear its own fees, costs, and expenses.”

Case 1:23-cv-00109 · D. Del. · closed 8 August 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-00109?

1:23-cv-00109 is a patent infringement action brought by DataCloud Technologies, LLC against Bandwidth, Inc., filed on 27 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 8 August 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-00109?

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; USRE44723E1 (“Regulating file access rates according to file type”), 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 Bandwidth Dashboard and the 911 Access Dashboard, Bandwidth rate limiting system for accounts with Messaging APIs and website infrastructure and its employ of TLS.

How was case 1:23-cv-00109 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(A)(ii), DATACLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and Defendant BANDWIDTH INC. (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby file this Stipulation of Dismissal, dismissing all claims in this action with prejudice.1 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-00109 take?

193 calendar days, from filing on 27 Jan 2023 to closure on 8 August 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00109?

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. Kenneth L. Dorsney. appears for defendant Bandwidth.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-00109 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00109 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.