Emergency Alerts Innovations, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 19 Jul 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 9 Aug 2023, with US8391826B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8391826B2
- Application no.
- US12/165128
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-00270
- 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
- 19 Jul 2022 – 9 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 386 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Controlling, operating, and using its cellular network to transmit WEAs to user devices
- 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
System for controlling the operation of wireless multicasting systems to distribute an alarm indication to a dynamically configured coverage area
The present Reverse 911 Alarm System implements a central alarm distribution site that is capable of generating an alarm indication to warn individuals of a hazard and propagating the alarm indication to selected individuals via their wireless subscriber devices by the use of wireless multicasting in the existing cellular communication network and/or wireless-based Local Area Networks which are operational in the coverage area of the hazard. The central alarm distribution site dynamically selects the wireless coverage area to encompass the present extent of the hazard and can also provide advanced warning to individuals located in an area that extends beyond the present hazard extent area. The present Reverse 911 Alarm System thereby integrates the operation of the wireless communication network with the 911 and Reverse 911 services to provide efficient and comprehensive distribution of alarm indications to the individuals who are impacted by an emergency situation.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 5 Mar 2013
- Est. expiry
- 26 Jan 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MCKENNA, DANIEL BERNARD · GRAZIANO, JAMES MICHAEL
- Classification
- H04M11/04H04B1/38G08B1/08H04W4/00H04W4/90
- Prosecution counsel
- SQUIRE PB
- Examiner
- BRANDT, CHRISTOPHER M
Parties of record
Emergency Alerts Innovations, LLC
- Core tech
- H04M11/04H04B1/38G08B1/08H04W4/00
- Counsel
- Alison Aubry Richards · Claire Abernathy Henry
- Firm
- Global IP Law Group, LLC, Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
Verizon Communications, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Michael E. Jones · Shaun William Hassett
- Firm
- Potter Minston LLP
- Also named
- Cellco Partnership, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alison Aubry Richards | Emergency Alerts Innovations, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Claire Abernathy Henry | Emergency Alerts Innovations, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Michael E. Jones | Verizon Communications, Inc. | Defendant |
| Shaun William Hassett | Verizon Communications, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted in Member Case No. 2:22-cv- 00269-JRG by and between the Parties are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE”
Case 2:22-cv-00270 · E.D. Tex. · closed 9 August 2023
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 2:22-cv-00270?
2:22-cv-00270 is a patent infringement action brought by Emergency Alerts Innovations, LLC against Verizon Communications, Inc., filed on 19 Jul 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 9 August 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:22-cv-00270?
US8391826B2 (“System for controlling the operation of wireless multicasting systems to distribute an alarm indication to a dynamically configured coverage area”), assigned to EMERGENCY ALERTS INNOVATIONS, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Controlling, operating, and using its cellular network to transmit WEAs to user devices.
How was case 2:22-cv-00270 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted in Member Case No. 2:22-cv- 00269-JRG by and between the Parties are hereby DISMISSED 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 2:22-cv-00270 take?
386 calendar days, from filing on 19 Jul 2022 to closure on 9 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-00270?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Alison Aubry Richards and Claire Abernathy Henry are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Emergency Alerts Innovations. Michael E. Jones and Shaun William Hassett appear for defendant Verizon Communications.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-00270 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.