Infringement action filed 4 Oct 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and closed 16 Nov 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
A system for modifying a cursor image, as displayed on a video monitor of a remote terminal, to a specific image having a desired shape and appearance. The system stores cursor image data corresponding to the specific image, and a cursor display code. The cursor display code contains information in response to which the cursor image is modified to the specific image. A server computer transmits specified information to the remote terminal. The information includes at least one cursor display instruction. The cursor display instruction is operable to modify, in conjunction with the cursor information and the cursor image data, a cursor image displayed by a display of the remote terminal in the shape and appearance of the specific image.
3 on recordIPR2023-01000 · Patentability · filed by eBay, Inc.IPR2018-01749 · Other · filed by Ralph Lauren CorporationIPR2024-00336 · Patentability · filed by eBay, Inc.
A system for modifying a cursor image, as displayed on a video monitor of a remote terminal, to a specific image having a desired shape and appearance. The system stores cursor image data corresponding to the specific image, and a cursor display code. The cursor display code contains information in response to which the cursor image is modified to the specific image. A server computer transmits specified information to the remote terminal. The information includes at least one cursor display instruction. The cursor display instruction is operable to modify, in conjunction with the cursor information and the cursor image data, a cursor image displayed by a display of the remote terminal in the shape and appearance of the specific image.
3 on recordIPR2023-01001 · Patentability · filed by eBay, Inc.IPR2024-00337 · Patentability · filed by eBay, Inc.IPR2018-01755 · Other · filed by Ralph Lauren Corporation
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
"ORDEREDthat defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. Nos. 13, 16]are GRANTED,and it is herebyORDEREDthat plaintiff's Complaint beand is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE"
Case 1:23-cv-01352 · E.D. Va. · closed 16 November 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.
1:23-cv-01352 is a patent infringement action brought by Alex Garvin against Bode Technology, filed on 4 Oct 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case closed on 16 November 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-01352?
US5995102A (“Server system and method for modifying a cursor image”), assigned to LEXOS MEDIA IP, LLC, currently inactive; US6118449A (“Server system and method for modifying a cursor image”), assigned to LEXOS MEDIA IP, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists The CDW.com interactive website (the cursor modification technology).
How was case 1:23-cv-01352 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: "ORDEREDthat defendants' Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. Nos. 13, 16]are GRANTED,and it is herebyORDEREDthat plaintiff's Complaint beand is 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 1:23-cv-01352 take?
43 calendar days, from filing on 4 Oct 2023 to closure on 16 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-01352?
Alex Garvin is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Alex Garvin. Krystal Brunner Swendsboe appears for defendant Bode Technology.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-01352 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-01352 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.