Hitel Technologies, LLC v. Tapestry, Inc.
Infringement action filed 31 Jan 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 21 Mar 2023, with US7689617B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7689617B2
- Application no.
- US11/361726
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-00113
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 31 Jan 2022 – 21 Mar 2023
- Duration
- 414 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Dynamic learning for navigation systems
- 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
Dynamic learning for navigation systems
A method performed in a system involves, at a node within the system, receiving an input from a user, determining that the input contains an unknown word, presenting at least one response to the user, and based upon at least one additional input from the user, learning one or more associations for the unknown word.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 30 Mar 2010
- Earliest priority
- 25 Feb 2005
- Est. expiry
- 26 Dec 2026
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- PARIKH, PRASHANT
- Classification
- G06F7/00G06F17/30
- Prosecution counsel
- WEITZMAN LAW OFFICES, LLC
- Examiner
- JALIL, NEVEEN ABEL
Parties of record
Hitel Technologies, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F7/00G06F17/30
- Counsel
- Raymond W. Mort III
- Firm
- The Mort Law Firm PLLC
Tapestry, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Adil Anjum Shaikh · David Brandon Conrad · Neil J. McNabnay
- Firm
- Fish & Richardson LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Raymond W. Mort III | Hitel Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Adil Anjum Shaikh | Tapestry, Inc. | Defendant |
| David Brandon Conrad | Tapestry, Inc. | Defendant |
| Neil J. McNabnay | Tapestry, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, Hitel Technologies LLC, and Defendant, Tapestry, Inc. have resolved their disputes in this action. Pursuant to this resolution, the parties hereby move the Court to dismiss with prejudice all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in this action and all counterclaims against Plaintiff without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii). The parties agree that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses shall be borne by the incurring party. Therefore, Hitel Technologies LLC and Tapestry, Inc. respectfully request that the Court enter an order dismissing with prejudice all claims in this action, asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in this action and all counterclaims against Plaintiff without prejudice, and ruling that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses shall be borne by the incurring party.”
Case 6:22-cv-00113 · W.D. Tex. · closed 21 March 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 6:22-cv-00113?
6:22-cv-00113 is a patent infringement action brought by Hitel Technologies, LLC against Tapestry, Inc., filed on 31 Jan 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 21 March 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:22-cv-00113?
US7689617B2 (“Dynamic learning for navigation systems”), assigned to HITEL TECHNOLOGIES LLC, currently active. The record also lists Dynamic learning for navigation systems.
How was case 6:22-cv-00113 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiff, Hitel Technologies LLC, and Defendant, Tapestry, Inc. have resolved their disputes in this action. Pursuant to this resolution, the parties hereby move the Court to dismiss with prejudice all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in this action and all counterclaims against Plaintiff without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii). The parties agree that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses shall be borne by the incurring party. Therefore, Hitel Technologies LLC and Tapestry, Inc. respectfully request that the Court enter
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 6:22-cv-00113 take?
414 calendar days, from filing on 31 Jan 2022 to closure on 21 March 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-00113?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Raymond W. Mort III is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Hitel Technologies. Adil Anjum Shaikh, David Brandon Conrad and Neil J. McNabnay appear for defendant Tapestry.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-00113 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.