Easyweb Innovations LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
Infringement action filed 1 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and closed 23 Mar 2026, with US10114905B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10114905B2
- Application no.
- US15/798957
- Case no.
- 1:25-cv-09971
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D.N.Y.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New York
- Chief judge
- Katherine Polk Failla
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 1 Dec 2025 – 23 Mar 2026
- Duration
- 112 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Facebook · Instagram · Messenger · WhatsApp
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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
Individual user selectable multi-level authorization method for accessing a computer system
A computer-implemented method for providing a plurality of security schemes and allowing a particular user of a computer system from among a plurality of users of the computer system to select a security scheme to be associated with the user independent of the security scheme selected by a remainder of the plurality of users of the computer system, thereby providing user customizable security to the computer system. At least one of the security schemes is comparatively more secure than another. Selections of security schemes are included with account information of the particular user and are used in connection with authorizing the particular user to use the computer system. First and second users can each select different security schemes based on their personal preferred balance between convenience and security and have their respective access to the computer system managed in relation to the selections included with their respective accounts.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 30 Oct 2018
- Earliest priority
- 11 Mar 1999
- Est. expiry
- 10 Mar 2020
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- CODIGNOTTO, JOHN D.
- Classification
- G06F17/30H04N1/327H04N1/32H04N1/44G06F17/21G06F3/12G06K9/20G06K9/00H04N1/00G06F17/22H04L29/08G06Q10/10H04L12/58G06V30/224G06F40/143G06V10/22
- Prosecution counsel
- Leason Ellis LLP
- Examiner
- MURRAY, DANIEL C.
Parties of record
Easyweb Innovations LLC
- Core tech
- G06F17/30H04N1/327H04N1/32H04N1/44
- Counsel
- David Lawrence Hecht
- Firm
- Hecht Partners, LLP
Meta Platforms, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Kathryn Albanese · Rose Cordero Prey · Scott J. Bornstein
- Firm
- Greenberg Traurig LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| David Lawrence Hecht | Easyweb Innovations LLC | Plaintiff |
| Kathryn Albanese | Meta Platforms, Inc. | Defendant |
| Rose Cordero Prey | Meta Platforms, Inc. | Defendant |
| Scott J. Bornstein | Meta Platforms, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff EasyWeb Innovations, LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not served an answer or a motion for summary judgment in this action. This dismissal is without prejudice.”
Case 1:25-cv-09971 · S.D.N.Y. · closed 23 March 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 1:25-cv-09971?
1:25-cv-09971 is a patent infringement action brought by Easyweb Innovations LLC against Meta Platforms, Inc., filed on 1 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case closed on 23 March 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:25-cv-09971?
US10114905B2 (“Individual user selectable multi-level authorization method for accessing a computer system”), assigned to EASYWEB INNOVATIONS, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp.
How was case 1:25-cv-09971 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff EasyWeb Innovations, LLC, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not served an answer or a motion for summary judgment in this action. This dismissal is without prejudice.”
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 1:25-cv-09971 take?
112 calendar days, from filing on 1 Dec 2025 to closure on 23 March 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-09971?
Chief Judge Katherine Polk Failla presided. David Lawrence Hecht is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Easyweb Innovations. Kathryn Albanese, Rose Cordero Prey and Scott J. Bornstein appear for defendant Meta Platforms.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-09971 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.