Book a demo

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

Try now
Ethor IP v. Hunger Rush et al. | Patent Lawsuit 4:23-cv-00913

Ethor IP Corporation v. Hunger Rush, LLC et al.

4:23-cv-00913 S.D. Tex. Closed US10460363B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 10 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas and closed 13 Jul 2023, with US10460363B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US10460363B2
Application no.
US12/870420
Case no.
4:23-cv-00913
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
S.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Charles Eskridge
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
10 Mar 2023 – 13 Jul 2023
Duration
125 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
System, method and computer program for integrating diverse point of sale systems
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 4:23-cv-00913, United States District Court for the Southern 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
US10460363B2 Active App. US12/870420

System, method and computer program for integrating diverse point of sale systems

The present invention provides a system, method and computer program for integrating point of sale systems by providing a common data model. A system of the invention may include one or more point of sale agents linkable to one or more diverse point of sale systems. The system may also include an order manager linked to the point of sale agents. The one or more point of sale agents are operable to communicate point of sale data between the one or more diverse point of sale systems and the order manager by mapping the point of sale data to a common data model. The present invention also provides a system, method and computer program for enabling dissemination of promotions to consumers based on point of sale data.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
29 Oct 2019
Est. expiry
4 Dec 2032
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06Q30/06G06Q20/20G06Q30/02
Prosecution counsel
PERRY + CURRIER INC.
Examiner
REFAI, RAMSEY
US10460363B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10460363B2 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 the stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Pursuant to the stipulation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims in this case are DISMISSED with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case.”

Case 4:23-cv-00913 · S.D. Tex. · closed 13 July 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 4:23-cv-00913?

4:23-cv-00913 is a patent infringement action brought by Ethor IP Corporation against Hunger Rush, LLC, filed on 10 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case closed on 13 July 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 4:23-cv-00913?

US10460363B2 (“System, method and computer program for integrating diverse point of sale systems”), assigned to ETHOR IP CORP., currently active. The record also lists System, method and computer program for integrating diverse point of sale systems.

How was case 4:23-cv-00913 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. Pursuant to the stipulation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims in this case are DISMISSED with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees. The Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case.”

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 4:23-cv-00913 take?

125 calendar days, from filing on 10 Mar 2023 to closure on 13 July 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:23-cv-00913?

Chief Judge Charles Eskridge presided. Cabrach John Connor and Jennifer Tatum Lee are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Ethor IP.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 4:23-cv-00913 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:23-cv-00913 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.