Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Kioba Processing v. Charles Schwab & et al. | Patent Lawsuit 6:22-cv-01075

Kioba Processing, LLC v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. et al.

6:22-cv-01075 W.D. Tex. Closed 4 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 12 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 21 Feb 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
6:22-cv-01075
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
12 Oct 2022 – 21 Feb 2023
Duration
132 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Method and system for the effecting payments by means of a mobile station · Modifiable authentication levels in authentication systems for transactions · Payment instrument authorization technique · System and method for processing monitoring data using data profiles
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:22-cv-01075, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8442915B2 Inactive App. US13/350302

Modifiable authentication levels in authentication systems for transactions

A system and method are provided for authentication. A first request for a transaction is received from a communications device, the first request comprising collation information of a customer to be authenticated and a price of a product or service to be purchased by the customer. An authentication level is set based on the price. A second request is transmitted to a mobile communications device of the customer. Authentication information is received from the mobile communications device, the authentication information comprising identification information of the customer. The authentication information is transmitted to the communications device.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
14 May 2013
Earliest priority
28 Jun 2000
Est. expiry
28 Jun 2021
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06Q40/00G06F15/00G06F21/33H04L9/00
Examiner
NORMAN, SAMICA L
US8442915B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8442915B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US6917902B2 Inactive App. US10/377913

System and method for processing monitoring data using data profiles

A system and method for processing monitoring data utilizing data templates are provided. A monitoring system includes a server in communication with various monitoring devices, including biometric monitoring devices. The monitoring system obtains the monitoring device data and evaluates the data according to data profiles that define one or more data templates, one or more data rules, and one or more outputs associated with the evaluation of the data rules. The data profiles, data rules, and data templates may be generated, formatted and distributed via a central repository.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
12 Jul 2005
Est. expiry
28 Feb 2023
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G07C9/00G06F21/00
Examiner
BUI, BRYAN
US6917902B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US6917902B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

2 more

The docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.

Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

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

“Plaintiff Kioba Processing, LLC hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(l)(A)(i) and the Settlement and License Agreement entered between the parties. According to Rule 41(a)(l)(A)(i), an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer. Accordingly, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendants WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(a)(l)(A)(i).”

Case 6:22-cv-01075 · W.D. Tex. · closed 21 February 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.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 6:22-cv-01075?

6:22-cv-01075 is a patent infringement action brought by Kioba Processing, LLC against Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., filed on 12 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 21 February 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 6:22-cv-01075?

US8442915B2 (“Modifiable authentication levels in authentication systems for transactions”), assigned to KIOBA PROCESSING, LLC, currently inactive; US6917902B2 (“System and method for processing monitoring data using data profiles”), assigned to KIOBA PROCESSING, LLC, currently inactive; US6931382B2 (“Payment instrument authorization technique”), assigned to EVANGELISTA (LAAGE), MARIA THERESA|KIOBA PROCESSING, LLC|LAAGE, DOMINIQUE; US7107078B2 (“Method and system for the effecting payments by means of a mobile station”), assigned to KIOBA PROCESSING, LLC. The record also lists Method and system for the effecting payments by means of a mobile station, Modifiable authentication levels in authentication systems for transactions, Payment instrument authorization technique and System and method for processing monitoring data using data profiles.

How was case 6:22-cv-01075 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Kioba Processing, LLC hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(l)(A)(i) and the Settlement and License Agreement entered between the parties. According to Rule 41(a)(l)(A)(i), an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer. Accordingly, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendants WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(a)(l)(A)(i).”

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-01075 take?

132 calendar days, from filing on 12 Oct 2022 to closure on 21 February 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-01075?

Oded Burger and Zachary H. Ellis are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Kioba Processing. Melissa Richards Smith appears for defendant Charles Schwab &.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:22-cv-01075 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-01075 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.