Infringement action filed 20 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 8 Dec 2023, with US9032038B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
A system and method for ensuring an electronic communication sent by a user to one or more recipients is not sent to one or more inappropriate recipients. The system and method controls, monitors, detects and prevents sending of electronic communications to an unintended recipient or recipients. The system and method also controls, monitors, detects and ensures electronic communications are sent to all intended recipients. Based on parameters that identify conditions for an inappropriate recipient, the system and method compares each recipient of an electronic communication with the parameters and stops the sending if an inappropriate recipient exists. A notification is then provided identifying each inappropriate recipient and the parameters that were triggered. Mechanism to override the stopping of the electronic communication may be provided.
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
"On this day, the Court considered Plaintiff’s Notice of Stipulated Dismissal with Prejudice, ECF No. 21. Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the terms of the Notice, the Court ORDERS that all claims in this case are DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall pay its own costs and fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is DENIED as moot."
Case 6:23-cv-00514 · W.D. Tex. · closed 8 December 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.
6:23-cv-00514 is a patent infringement action brought by Gatekeeper Solutions, Inc. against Cisco Systems, Inc., filed on 20 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 8 December 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00514?
US9032038B2 (“Recipient control system for ensuring non-conflicting and comprehensive distribution of digital information and method thereof”), assigned to GATEKEEPER SOLUTIONS, INC., currently active. The record also lists Recipient control system for ensuring non-conflicting and comprehensive distribution of digital information and method thereof.
How was case 6:23-cv-00514 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: "On this day, the Court considered Plaintiff’s Notice of Stipulated Dismissal with Prejudice, ECF No. 21. Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the terms of the Notice, the Court ORDERS that all claims in this case are DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall pay its own costs and fees. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 8, is DENIED as moot."
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 6:23-cv-00514 take?
141 calendar days, from filing on 20 Jul 2023 to closure on 8 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00514?
Chief Judge Kathleen Cardone presided. Joseph J. Zito and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Gatekeeper Solutions. Krishnan Padmanabhan, Mark N. Osborn and Shelly W. Rivas appear for defendant Cisco Systems.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:23-cv-00514 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00514 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.
