Book a demo

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

Try now
DataCloud Technologies v. Metro Fibernet | Patent Lawsuit 2:23-cv-01413

DataCloud Technologies, LLC v. Metro Fibernet, LLC

2:23-cv-01413 D. Nev. Closed 4 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 11 Sep 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada and closed 21 Dec 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
2:23-cv-01413
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Nev.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Nevada
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
11 Sep 2023 – 21 Dec 2023
Duration
101 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Metronet Android App · Metronet CPE with Port forwarding · Metronet TV set top box to download and run streaming apps · Metronet websites using Transport Layer Security (TLS)/HTTPS and SNI
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:23-cv-01413, United States District Court for the District of Nevada. 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
US8370457B2 Inactive App. US11/717911

Network communication through a virtual domain

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
5 Feb 2013
Est. expiry
4 Apr 2020
Validity challenges
1 on record90019739 · EPR
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F15/16H04L29/06H04L29/08H04L29/12
Prosecution counsel
AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP
Examiner
NGUYEN, VAN
US8370457B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8370457B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US6651063B1 Inactive App. US09/493911

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.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
18 Nov 2003
Est. expiry
28 Jan 2020
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F17/30
Examiner
VU, KIM

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

“Plaintiff DataCloud Technologies, LLC (“DataCloud”), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby voluntarily dismisses all claims in its Complaint in this action WITH PREJUDICE against Defendant METRO FIBERNET, LLC (“Defendant”). Defendant has neither filed an Answer nor filed a motion for Summary Judgment in this matter..”

Case 2:23-cv-01413 · D. Nev. · closed 21 December 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 2:23-cv-01413?

2:23-cv-01413 is a patent infringement action brought by DataCloud Technologies, LLC against Metro Fibernet, LLC, filed on 11 Sep 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The case closed on 21 December 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 2:23-cv-01413?

US8370457B2 (“Network communication through a virtual domain”), 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; US7246351B2 (“System and method for deploying and implementing software applications over a distributed network”), assigned to DATACLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. The record also lists Metronet Android App, Metronet CPE with Port forwarding, Metronet TV set top box to download and run streaming apps and Metronet websites using Transport Layer Security (TLS)/HTTPS and SNI.

How was case 2:23-cv-01413 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff DataCloud Technologies, LLC (“DataCloud”), by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby voluntarily dismisses all claims in its Complaint in this action WITH PREJUDICE against Defendant METRO FIBERNET, LLC (“Defendant”). Defendant has neither filed an Answer nor filed a motion for Summary Judgment in this matter..”

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 2:23-cv-01413 take?

101 calendar days, from filing on 11 Sep 2023 to closure on 21 December 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-01413?

Debra Spinelli, James F. McDonough III, Jonathan R. Miller, Jonathan Robert Miller and Maria M. Mercera are recorded as counsel for plaintiff DataCloud Technologies.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:23-cv-01413 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-01413 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.