Lone Star Document Management LLC v. Micro Focus (US) Group, Inc.
Infringement action filed 15 May 2026 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 9 Jun 2026, with US6918082B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6918082B1
- Application no.
- US09/215593
- Case no.
- 1:26-cv-01306
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Robert Pitman
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 15 May 2026 – 9 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 25 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- The Micro Focus products and services
- 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
Electronic document proofing system
A system is provided for proofing electronic documents delivered over a network. The system comprises a plurality of electronic documents in portable document file format, a computer connectable to the network for receiving the plurality of portable format documents together with at least one associated proofer identifier, a program executing on the computer for assigning a version number to each of the plurality of received portable format documents, and a database accessible by the computer for storing the documents and associated version numbers. The computer for receiving a request, from a proofer presenting the proofer identifier, to review a portable format electronic document, and the program for retrieving and formatting the requested document for display.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 12 Jul 2005
- Est. expiry
- 12 Nov 2020
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordCBM2016-00005 · filed by Intralinks, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- GROSS, JEFFREY M. · PARKER, MATTHEW H.
- Classification
- G06F15/00G06F17/22G06F17/30G06Q10/00
- Prosecution counsel
- DARBY & DARBY P.C.
- Examiner
- FEILD, JOSEPH
Parties of record
Lone Star Document Management LLC
- Core tech
- G06F15/00G06F17/22G06F17/30G06Q10/00
- Counsel
- Timothy Devlin
- Firm
- Devlin Law Firm LLC
Micro Focus (US) Group, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Thomas A. James · Timothy J. Carroll
- Firm
- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Timothy Devlin | Lone Star Document Management LLC | Plaintiff |
| Thomas A. James | Micro Focus (US) Group, Inc. | Defendant |
| Timothy J. Carroll | Micro Focus (US) Group, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“On June 8, 2026, Plaintiff dismissed all claims in this case with prejudice. (Dkt. 10). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s notice is therefore “self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.” In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (May 15, 2015). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, (Dkt. 10), is GRANTED and that the case is CLOSED.”
Case 1:26-cv-01306 · W.D. Tex. · closed 9 June 2026
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 1:26-cv-01306?
1:26-cv-01306 is a patent infringement action brought by Lone Star Document Management LLC against Micro Focus (US) Group, Inc., filed on 15 May 2026 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 9 June 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:26-cv-01306?
US6918082B1 (“Electronic document proofing system”), assigned to LONE STAR DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists The Micro Focus products and services.
How was case 1:26-cv-01306 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “On June 8, 2026, Plaintiff dismissed all claims in this case with prejudice. (Dkt. 10). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s notice is therefore “self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.” In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir.
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 1:26-cv-01306 take?
25 calendar days, from filing on 15 May 2026 to closure on 9 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:26-cv-01306?
Chief Judge Robert Pitman presided. Timothy Devlin is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Lone Star Document Management. Thomas A. James and Timothy J. Carroll appear for defendant Micro Focus (US) Group.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:26-cv-01306 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.