Gatekeeper Solutions, Inc. v. LinkedIn, Corp.
Infringement action filed 20 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 6 Nov 2023, with US9032038B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9032038B2
- Application no.
- US14/027126
- Case no.
- 6:23-cv-00515
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Kathleen Cardone
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 20 Jul 2023 – 6 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 109 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Transferred
- Products & marks
- Recipient control system for ensuring non-conflicting and comprehensive distribution of digital information and method thereof
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
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
Recipient control system for ensuring non-conflicting and comprehensive distribution of digital information and method thereof
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.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 12 May 2015
- Est. expiry
- 18 Oct 2033
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record90019719 · EPR
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DICK, STEPHEN G. · COHEN, TODD · MILLER, BARRY · GARNIER, LAWRENCE
- Classification
- G06F15/16G06Q10/10H04L12/58
- Prosecution counsel
- Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C.
- Examiner
- DONAGHUE, LARRY
Parties of record
Gatekeeper Solutions, Inc.
- Core tech
- G06F15/16G06Q10/10H04L12/58
- Counsel
- Joseph J. Zito · William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Dnl Zito Castellano, Ramey LLP
LinkedIn, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Benjamin L. Bernell · Brock S. Weber · Christopher Kao
- Firm
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Joseph J. Zito | Gatekeeper Solutions, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| William P. Ramey III | Gatekeeper Solutions, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Benjamin L. Bernell | LinkedIn, Corp. | Defendant |
| Brock S. Weber | LinkedIn, Corp. | Defendant |
| Christopher Kao | LinkedIn, Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“On this day, the Court considered Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or in the Alternative, to Transfer to the Northern District of California, or Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, ECF No. 12. Plaintiff has filed a Response, ECF No. 16, stating that Plaintiff is unopposed to transferring the case to the Northern District of California but is opposed to dismissal. Resp. at 1. Upon due consideration, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court ORDERS that this matter is IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California.”
Case 6:23-cv-00515 · W.D. Tex. · closed 6 November 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 6:23-cv-00515?
6:23-cv-00515 is a patent infringement action brought by Gatekeeper Solutions, Inc. against LinkedIn, Corp., filed on 20 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 6 November 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00515?
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-00515 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “On this day, the Court considered Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, or in the Alternative, to Transfer to the Northern District of California, or Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, ECF No. 12. Plaintiff has filed a Response, ECF No. 16, stating that Plaintiff is unopposed to transferring the case to the Northern District of California but is opposed to dismissal. Resp. at 1. Upon due consideration, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court ORDERS that this matter is IMMEDIATELY TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California.”
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 6:23-cv-00515 take?
109 calendar days, from filing on 20 Jul 2023 to closure on 6 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00515?
Chief Judge Kathleen Cardone presided. Joseph J. Zito and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Gatekeeper Solutions. Benjamin L. Bernell, Brock S. Weber and Christopher Kao appear for defendant LinkedIn.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00515 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.