Front Row Technologies LLC v. Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd.
Infringement action filed 13 Sep 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas and closed 18 Oct 2023, with US8750784B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8750784B2
- Application no.
- US13/402536
- Case no.
- 4:23-cv-00943
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Mark Pittman
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 13 Sep 2023 – 18 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 35 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Method, system and server for authorizing computing devices for receipt of venue-based data based on the geographic location of a user
- 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
Method, system and server for authorizing computing devices for receipt of venue-based data based on the geographic location of a user
Methods, systems and servers are disclosed for authorizing access by a user of a service associated with an event at a venue and provided via a computer network based on a determined geographic location of the user. The location of the user can be determined, via a server, based on location information obtained from the held device utilized by the user. The computing device can be authorized to receive the service (e.g., video, concession information, advertisements, statistical information, etc.) based on the location information obtained from the hand held device.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 10 Jun 2014
- Earliest priority
- 26 Oct 2000
- Est. expiry
- 8 Nov 2020
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ORTIZ, LUIS M. · LOPEZ, KERMIT D.
- Classification
- H04N7/173H04H20/71H04W24/00H04M3/16
- Prosecution counsel
- ORTIZ & LOPEZ, PLLC
- Examiner
- GESESSE, TILAHUN B
Parties of record
Front Row Technologies LLC
- Core tech
- H04N7/173H04H20/71H04W24/00H04M3/16
- Counsel
- Jared Seth Widenbaum · William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Quilling Selander Lownds Winslett Moser, Ramey LLP
Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jared Seth Widenbaum | Front Row Technologies LLC | Plaintiff |
| William P. Ramey III | Front Row Technologies LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, Front Row Technologies, LLC, files this notice of voluntary dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims as Defendant has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITH PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 4:23-cv-00943 · N.D. Tex. · closed 18 October 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 4:23-cv-00943?
4:23-cv-00943 is a patent infringement action brought by Front Row Technologies LLC against Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., filed on 13 Sep 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case closed on 18 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 4:23-cv-00943?
US8750784B2 (“Method, system and server for authorizing computing devices for receipt of venue-based data based on the geographic location of a user”), assigned to FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Method, system and server for authorizing computing devices for receipt of venue-based data based on the geographic location of a user.
How was case 4:23-cv-00943 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, Front Row Technologies, LLC, files this notice of voluntary dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims as Defendant has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITH PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”
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-00943 take?
35 calendar days, from filing on 13 Sep 2023 to closure on 18 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:23-cv-00943?
Chief Judge Mark Pittman presided. Jared Seth Widenbaum and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Front Row Technologies.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:23-cv-00943 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.