DataCloud Technologies, LLC v. Foxconn Technology Group
Infringement action filed 6 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 18 May 2026, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US7209959B1US7398298B2US7246351B2
- Case no.
- 2:26-cv-00186
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 6 Mar 2026 – 18 May 2026
- Duration
- 73 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Apparatus, system, and method for communicating to a network through a virtual domain providing anonymity to a client communicating on the network · Remote access and retrieval of electronic files · System and method for deploying and implementing software applications over a distributed network
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
Remote access and retrieval of electronic files
A system and methods for remotely accessing, retrieving, and transmitting data offering remote data management control and verification of data delivery is provided. In an illustrative implementation, the present invention comprises a computing application operating on at least one computer server that cooperates with at least one communications network to which participating users have access. The exemplary computing application coordinates the delivery of desired data its corresponding data directory structure information to participating users over the communications network. The present invention further provides notification of delivery of data to intended targets using the communications network.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 8 Jul 2008
- Est. expiry
- 29 Mar 2022
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KOCH, ROBERT A.
- Classification
- G06F15/16G06F12/00G06F17/30G06F15/173H04L29/06H04L29/08
- Prosecution counsel
- POLSINELLI PC
- Examiner
- NEURAUTER, JR., GEORGE C
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
DataCloud Technologies, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F15/16H04L29/06H04L29/08H04L29/12
- Counsel
- Carey Matthew Rozier · James Francis McDonough III · Jonathan Lloyd Hardt · Jonathan R. Miller
- Firm
- Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC
Foxconn Technology Group
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Adam Doane
- Firm
- Honeywell International Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Carey Matthew Rozier | DataCloud Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| James Francis McDonough III | DataCloud Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jonathan Lloyd Hardt | DataCloud Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jonathan R. Miller | DataCloud Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Adam Doane | Foxconn Technology Group | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Datacloud Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 15.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned member case, No. 2:26-cv-00186-JRG-RSP, is voluntarily dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in member case No. 2:26- cv-00186-JRG-RSP are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned member case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to MAINTAIN AS OPEN the above-captioned lead case and CLOSE the above-captioned member case.”
Case 2:26-cv-00186 · E.D. Tex. · closed 18 May 2026
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 2:26-cv-00186?
2:26-cv-00186 is a patent infringement action brought by DataCloud Technologies, LLC against Foxconn Technology Group, filed on 6 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 18 May 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 2:26-cv-00186?
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; US7398298B2 (“Remote access and retrieval of electronic files”), assigned to DATACLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, currently inactive; US7246351B2 (“System and method for deploying and implementing software applications over a distributed network”), assigned to DATACLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. The record also lists Apparatus, system, and method for communicating to a network through a virtual domain providing anonymity to a client communicating on the network, Remote access and retrieval of electronic files and System and method for deploying and implementing software applications over a distributed network.
How was case 2:26-cv-00186 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Datacloud Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 15.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned member case, No. 2:26-cv-00186-JRG-RSP, is voluntarily dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in member case No. 2:26- cv-00186-JRG-RSP are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned member case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. Eac
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 2:26-cv-00186 take?
73 calendar days, from filing on 6 Mar 2026 to closure on 18 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:26-cv-00186?
Carey Matthew Rozier, James Francis McDonough III, Jonathan Lloyd Hardt and Jonathan R. Miller are recorded as counsel for plaintiff DataCloud Technologies. Adam Doane appears for defendant Foxconn Technology Group.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:26-cv-00186 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.