Infringement action filed 9 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 7 May 2026, with US7324301B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
A hard disk drive comprises an actuator with independently movable arms and a printed circuit board with custom core electronic architecture. The drive also comprises one or more platters aggregating two or more platter surfaces whereupon data may be read from or written to by corresponding read/write heads. The independent-arm actuator and custom printed circuit board enable alternate or interleaving bits or blocks of data to be read or written simultaneously across a plurality of platter surfaces within the same physical drive.
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
"MINUTES [IN CHAMBERS] Order RegardingMotion to Dismiss 18 by JudgeJames V. Selna Granting 18 MOTION to Dismiss Case:For theforegoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court further finds that oralargument would not be helpful on this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the May 11, 2026, hearing. (see document for further details) (MDJS-6. Case Terminated) (bm) (Entered: 05/08/2026)"
Case 8:25-cv-02728 · C.D. Cal. · closed 7 May 2026
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.
8:25-cv-02728 is a patent infringement action brought by Jamil Asafi against Western Digital, Corp., filed on 9 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 7 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 8:25-cv-02728?
US7324301B2 (“Striping data simultaneously across multiple platter surfaces”), assigned to ADVANCED DATA SOLUTIONS CORP., currently inactive. The record also lists Ultrastar- and WD-branded HDDs that incorporate dual-actuator technologies and Ultrastar DC HS760 20TB dual-actuator HDD.
How was case 8:25-cv-02728 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: "MINUTES [IN CHAMBERS] Order RegardingMotion to Dismiss 18 by JudgeJames V. Selna Granting 18 MOTION to Dismiss Case:For theforegoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court further finds that oralargument would not be helpful on this matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the May 11, 2026, hearing. (see document for further details) (MDJS-6. Case Terminated) (bm) (Entered: 05/08/2026)"
How long did case 8:25-cv-02728 take?
149 calendar days, from filing on 9 Dec 2025 to closure on 7 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 8:25-cv-02728?
Benjamin Charles Deming is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Jamil Asafi. Aaron E. Hankel, Bobbie Hooper, Evan J. Weidner, Mayela C. Montenegro-Urch and Nancy M Olson appear for defendant Western Digital.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 8:25-cv-02728 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 8:25-cv-02728 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.
Patsnap Eureka
Eureka AI Agent
Help us improve
Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.
