LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC v. Google, LLC
Infringement action filed 25 Mar 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 27 Nov 2023, with US10154092B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10154092B2
- Application no.
- US14/997327
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-00853
- 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
- 25 Mar 2022 – 27 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 612 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Data sharing using distributed cache in a network of heterogeneous computers
- Validity challenges
- 2 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
Data sharing using distributed cache in a network of heterogeneous computers
A network of PCs includes an I/O channel adapter and network adapter, and is configured for management of a distributed cache memory stored in the plurality of PCs interconnected by the network. The use of standard PCs reduces the cost of the data storage system. The use of the network of PCs permits building large, high-performance, data storage systems.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 11 Dec 2018
- Est. expiry
- 22 Jan 2019
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordIPR2023-00733 · Patentability · filed by Amazon.com, Inc.IPR2023-00120 · Patentability · filed by Amazon.com, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- GERTNER, ILYA
- Classification
- G06F3/06G06F17/30H04L29/08G06F12/0808G06F12/128G06F12/12
- Prosecution counsel
- TOLER LAW GROUP
- Examiner
- TIV, BACKHEAN
Parties of record
LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Kyril Talanov · William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Law Office of Kyril Talanov, Ramey LLP
Google, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Brian Christopher Banner · Darryl Adams · Eric A. Krause · Jeannine Sano · Pan C. Lee
- Firm
- Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Kyril Talanov | LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| William P. Ramey III | LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Brian Christopher Banner | Google, LLC | Defendant |
| Darryl Adams | Google, LLC | Defendant |
| Eric A. Krause | Google, LLC | Defendant |
| Jeannine Sano | Google, LLC | Defendant |
| Pan C. Lee | Google, LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Dkt. 49). The parties seek to dismiss “[a]ll claims of infringement that Plaintiff raised or could have raised in this action” with prejudice and “[a]ll claims, defenses, or counterclaims that Defendant raised” without prejudice. (Id.). The Court construes the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 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). Because Defendant filed an answer, (Dkt. 11), the Court will construe the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). “Stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) . . . require no judicial action or approval and are effective automatically upon filing.” Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013).”
Case 1:22-cv-00853 · W.D. Tex. · closed 27 November 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-00853?
1:22-cv-00853 is a patent infringement action brought by LS Cloud Storage Technologies, LLC against Google, LLC, filed on 25 Mar 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 27 November 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-00853?
US10154092B2 (“Data sharing using distributed cache in a network of heterogeneous computers”), assigned to GERTNER, ILYA, currently inactive. The record also lists Data sharing using distributed cache in a network of heterogeneous computers.
How was case 1:22-cv-00853 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Dkt. 49). The parties seek to dismiss “[a]ll claims of infringement that Plaintiff raised or could have raised in this action” with prejudice and “[a]ll claims, defenses, or counterclaims that Defendant raised” without prejudice. (Id.). The Court construes the parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of di
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-00853 take?
612 calendar days, from filing on 25 Mar 2022 to closure on 27 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-00853?
Chief Judge Robert Pitman presided. Kyril Talanov and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff LS Cloud Storage Technologies. Brian Christopher Banner, Darryl Adams, Eric A. Krause, Jeannine Sano and Pan C. Lee appear for defendant Google.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-00853 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.