Flash-Control, LLC v. Intel, Corp.
Infringement action filed 4 May 2020 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 4 May 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9357184B2US9792219B2US9257184B2
- Case no.
- 6:20-cv-00360
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 4 May 2020 – 4 May 2023
- Duration
- 1095 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Credential transfer management camera network · Nonvolatile memory systems with embedded fast read and write memories
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
Credential transfer management camera network
A camera detects devices, such as other cameras, smart devices, and access points, with which the camera may communicate. The camera may alternate between operating as a wireless station and a wireless access point. The camera may connect to and receive credentials from a device for another device to which it is not connected. In one embodiment, the camera is configured to operate as a wireless access point, and is configured to receive credentials from a smart device operating as a wireless station. The camera may then transfer the credentials to additional cameras, each configured to operate as wireless stations. The camera and additional cameras may connect to a smart device directly or indirectly (for instance, through an access point), and the smart device may change the camera mode of the cameras. The initial modes of the cameras may be preserved and restored by the smart device upon disconnection.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 31 May 2016
- Est. expiry
- 25 Jul 2032
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BROCKWAY, III, RICHARD T. · YOUEL, JEFFREY S. · CHEN, JOHN S. · BARBIER, FABRICE
- Classification
- H04H40/00H04W84/18H04N7/18H04N5/232H04L12/28H04W88/08H04N5/445H04W12/06H04N5/247H04W88/06H04W84/12H04N23/90
- Prosecution counsel
- Esplin & Associates
- Examiner
- SOROWAR, GOLAM
Nonvolatile memory systems with embedded fast read and write memories
A nonvolatile memory system is described with novel architecture coupling nonvolatile storage memory with random access volatile memory. New commands are included to enhance the read and write performance of the memory system.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 17 Oct 2017
- Earliest priority
- 24 Oct 2007
- Est. expiry
- 22 Oct 2028
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordIPR2021-00349 · Other · filed by Intel Corp.IPR2020-01710 · filed by Micron Technology, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- RAO, G. R. MOHAN
- Classification
- G06F12/10G11C16/06G11C11/22G11C13/00G11C11/02G11C14/00G11C7/10G11C16/10
- Prosecution counsel
- Sprinkle IP Law Group
- Examiner
- PHAM, LY D
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Flash-Control, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Alex Chan · Derek F. Dahlgren · James M. Lennon · Timothy Devlin
- Firm
- Devlin Law Firm LLC
Intel, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- J. Stephen Ravel · James Eric Wren III
- Firm
- Baylor University Law School, Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alex Chan | Flash-Control, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Derek F. Dahlgren | Flash-Control, LLC | Plaintiff |
| James M. Lennon | Flash-Control, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Timothy Devlin | Flash-Control, LLC | Plaintiff |
| J. Stephen Ravel | Intel, Corp. | Defendant |
| James Eric Wren III | Intel, Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Flash-Control LLC (“Plaintiff”) hereby dismisses this action with prejudice. According to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Defendant Intel Corporation (“Defendant”) has not yet answered the Complaint or filed a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 6:20-cv-00360 · W.D. Tex. · closed 4 May 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 6:20-cv-00360?
6:20-cv-00360 is a patent infringement action brought by Flash-Control, LLC against Intel, Corp., filed on 4 May 2020 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 4 May 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 6:20-cv-00360?
US9357184B2 (“Credential transfer management camera network”), assigned to GOPRO, INC., currently active; US9792219B2 (“Nonvolatile memory systems with embedded fast read and write memories”), assigned to RPX CORPORATION, currently inactive; US9257184B2 (“Nonvolatile memory systems with embedded fast read and write memories”), assigned to RPX CORPORATION. The record also lists Credential transfer management camera network and Nonvolatile memory systems with embedded fast read and write memories.
How was case 6:20-cv-00360 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Flash-Control LLC (“Plaintiff”) hereby dismisses this action with prejudice. According to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Defendant Intel Corporation (“Defendant”) has not yet answered the Complaint or filed a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant with prejudice pursuant to Rule
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 6:20-cv-00360 take?
1095 calendar days, from filing on 4 May 2020 to closure on 4 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:20-cv-00360?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Alex Chan, Derek F. Dahlgren, James M. Lennon and Timothy Devlin are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Flash-Control. J. Stephen Ravel and James Eric Wren III appear for defendant Intel.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:20-cv-00360 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.