Book a demo

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

Try now
Elite Gaming Tech v. Ricoh | Patent Lawsuit 2:23-cv-00190

Elite Gaming Tech, LLC v. Ricoh Company, Ltd.

2:23-cv-00190 E.D. Tex. Closed 2 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 24 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 31 May 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case terminated.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US6973535B2US7546411B2
Case no.
2:23-cv-00190
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Rodney Gilstrap
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
24 Apr 2023 – 31 May 2023
Duration
37 days
Basis of termination
Case Terminated
Products & marks
Digital device configuration and method
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:23-cv-00190, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 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
US6973535B2 Inactive App. US10/447544

Digital device configuration and method

An electromechanical data storage arrangement is interfaced with a host. The interface may include a conductor that carries read and write gate signals. Another conductor carries both a servo sync mark and an error signal. The storage arrangement includes an external serial interface connected to a host serial interface applying a device identification to a portion of serial control-related data that travels over the interface. A serial router in the storage arrangement uses the device identification to manage the control-related data between the interface and a number of serial devices and associated interfaces within the storage arrangement. The serial router is in selective data communication with each of the device serial interfaces, for using the device identification to direct a host-asserted command to a targeted device where each device is controlled by a different command set such that the system can be customized for different command sets of different devices.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
6 Dec 2005
Earliest priority
14 Sep 2001
Est. expiry
17 Dec 2021
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F3/00G06F3/06G06F12/00G06F13/12G11BG11B19/02G11B20/00G11B27/031
Prosecution counsel
PERKINS COIE LLP
Examiner
PORTKA, GARY
US6973535B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US6973535B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US7546411B2 Inactive App. US11/074365

Digital device configuration and method

An electromechanical data storage arrangement is interfaced with a host. The interface may include a conductor that carries read and write gate signals. Another conductor carries both a servo sync mark and an error signal. The storage arrangement includes an external serial interface connected to a host serial interface applying a device identification to a portion of serial control-related data that travels over the interface. A serial router in the storage arrangement uses the device identification to manage the control-related data between the interface and a number of serial devices and associated interfaces within the storage arrangement. The serial router is in selective data communication with each of the device serial interfaces, for using the device identification to direct a host-asserted command to a targeted device where each device is controlled by a different command set such that the system can be customized for different command sets of different devices.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
9 Jun 2009
Earliest priority
28 Apr 2003
Est. expiry
14 Sep 2021
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F12/00G06F3/00G06F3/06G06F13/12G11BG11B19/02G11B20/00G11B27/031
Prosecution counsel
PERKINS COIE LLP
Examiner
PORTKA, GARY J
US7546411B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7546411B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
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

“Before the Court is Plaintiff Elite Gaming Tech LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (the “Notice”). (Dkt. No. 9.) In the Notice, Plaintiff dismisses the above-captioned action against Defendant Ricoh Company, Ltd. (“Defendant”) without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain”

Case 2:23-cv-00190 · E.D. Tex. · closed 31 May 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-00190?

2:23-cv-00190 is a patent infringement action brought by Elite Gaming Tech, LLC against Ricoh Company, Ltd., filed on 24 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 31 May 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 2:23-cv-00190?

US6973535B2 (“Digital device configuration and method”), assigned to CORNICE, INC, currently inactive; US7546411B2 (“Digital device configuration and method”), assigned to CORNICE, INC, currently inactive. The record also lists Digital device configuration and method.

How was case 2:23-cv-00190 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case terminated. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Plaintiff Elite Gaming Tech LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (the “Notice”). (Dkt. No. 9.) In the Notice, Plaintiff dismisses the above-captioned action against Defendant Ricoh Company, Ltd. (“Defendant”) without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own cos

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 2:23-cv-00190 take?

37 calendar days, from filing on 24 Apr 2023 to closure on 31 May 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00190?

Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. John Andrew Rubino, Michael Mondelli III and Vincent J. Rubino III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Elite Gaming Tech.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:23-cv-00190 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00190 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.