GeoComply Solutions, Inc. v. Xpoint Services, LLC
Infringement action filed 27 Sep 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 10 Feb 2023, with US9413805B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9413805B2
- Application no.
- US13/715672
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-01273
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- William C. Bryson
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 27 Sep 2022 – 10 Feb 2023
- Duration
- 136 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Geolocation engine
- 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
Geolocation engine
Embodiments of the present invention for determining a geo-location for a device in communication with a network service provider begin with installing a mechanism for collecting geolocation data at a client device. The mechanism may be implemented as a mobile app, client application, browser plug-in, or other mechanism. The mechanism may collect geolocation data from multiple sources, including the device itself and other devices within the vicinity. The mechanism may also collect data regarding selected programs that may be installed on the client device. The geolocation data and program data may be transmitted back to a server for processing. The server may determine whether a geolocation is acceptable by determining a geolocation from the geolocation data, a likelihood of accuracy and/or trust score, as well as determining if any undesirable programs are stored on the client device. A determination regarding the geolocation of the client device if made, a white list of devices may be updated, and the geolocation results are provided the network service provider, either directly by the server or through the mechanism on the client device.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 9 Aug 2016
- Earliest priority
- 15 Dec 2011
- Est. expiry
- 25 Dec 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SAINSBURY, ANNA
- Classification
- G06F15/173H04W4/02H04L29/08H04W4/021
- Prosecution counsel
- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
- Examiner
- ALGIBHAH, HAMZA
Parties of record
GeoComply Solutions, Inc.
- Core tech
- G06F15/173H04W4/02H04L29/08H04W4/021
- Counsel
- Andrew E. Samuels · Douglas A. Grady · Jeffrey J. Lyons · Kevin P. Flynn · Paul J. Bruene
- Firm
- Baker & Hostetler, LLP
Xpoint Services, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Gary M. Rubman · Jack B. Blumenfeld · Jeremy A. Tigan · Michael E. Bowlus · Peter A. Swanson
- Firm
- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew E. Samuels | GeoComply Solutions, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Douglas A. Grady | GeoComply Solutions, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jeffrey J. Lyons | GeoComply Solutions, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Kevin P. Flynn | GeoComply Solutions, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Paul J. Bruene | GeoComply Solutions, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Gary M. Rubman | Xpoint Services, LLC | Defendant |
| Jack B. Blumenfeld | Xpoint Services, LLC | Defendant |
| Jeremy A. Tigan | Xpoint Services, LLC | Defendant |
| Michael E. Bowlus | Xpoint Services, LLC | Defendant |
| Peter A. Swanson | Xpoint Services, LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Rule 58, Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court hereby enters final judgment in this case. The action brought by plaintiff GeoComply Solutions Inc. against defendant Xpoint Services LLC is dismissed with prejudice for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order filed on this date. IT IS SO ORDERED”
Case 1:22-cv-01273 · D. Del. · closed 10 February 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 1:22-cv-01273?
1:22-cv-01273 is a patent infringement action brought by GeoComply Solutions, Inc. against Xpoint Services, LLC, filed on 27 Sep 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 10 February 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-01273?
US9413805B2 (“Geolocation engine”), assigned to GEOCOMPLY SOLUTIONS INC, currently active. The record also lists Geolocation engine.
How was case 1:22-cv-01273 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Rule 58, Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court hereby enters final judgment in this case. The action brought by plaintiff GeoComply Solutions Inc. against defendant Xpoint Services LLC is dismissed with prejudice for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order filed on this date. IT IS SO ORDERED”
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 1:22-cv-01273 take?
136 calendar days, from filing on 27 Sep 2022 to closure on 10 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-01273?
Chief Judge William C. Bryson presided. Andrew E. Samuels, Douglas A. Grady, Jeffrey J. Lyons, Kevin P. Flynn and Paul J. Bruene are recorded as counsel for plaintiff GeoComply Solutions. Gary M. Rubman, Jack B. Blumenfeld, Jeremy A. Tigan, Michael E. Bowlus and Peter A. Swanson appear for defendant Xpoint Services.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-01273 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.