M4siz Limited v. Nike
Infringement action filed 6 Jul 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 24 Jan 2023, with US6526402B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6526402B2
- Application no.
- US09/732947
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-00733
- 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
- 6 Jul 2022 – 24 Jan 2023
- Duration
- 202 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Searching procedures
- 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
Searching procedures
A searching procedure, particularly for searching on the Internet, using a search engine associated with a database and comprising submitting a request string comprising a locator (or URL) for the search engine and a search string including at least one search term. This will be an invalid address so an error signal is generated, and the generation thereof is monitored and used to trigger parsing of the request into the locator and the search string. The search string is then submitted to the search engine having the specified locator; and the data returned from the search engine is passed back to the user. The invention also includes a computer readable medium and a set of application program interfaces on such a medium for use in effecting the above procedure. The invention allows convenient searching from a command line.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 25 Feb 2003
- Earliest priority
- 27 Oct 2000
- Est. expiry
- 12 Jul 2021
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LING, JAMES RICHARD
- Classification
- G06F17/30
- Prosecution counsel
- Renner, Kenner, Greive, Bobak, Taylor & Weber
- Examiner
- METJAHIC, SAFET
Parties of record
M4siz Limited
- Core tech
- G06F17/30
- Counsel
- Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak · William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Ramey LLP
Nike
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- John Michael Guaragna · Peter Maggiore · Richard Mulloy · Tiffany C. Miller
- Firm
- DLA Piper US LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak | M4siz Limited | Plaintiff |
| William P. Ramey III | M4siz Limited | Plaintiff |
| John Michael Guaragna | Nike | Defendant |
| Peter Maggiore | Nike | Defendant |
| Richard Mulloy | Nike | Defendant |
| Tiffany C. Miller | Nike | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. ECF No. 21. The report recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (ECF No. 11). The report and recommendation was filed on January 6, 2023. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). As of today, neither party has filed objections. When no objections are timely filed, a district court reviews the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note (“When no timely objection is filed, the [district] court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation and finds no clear error. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Gilliland (ECF No. 21) is ADOPTED. Case 6:22-cv-00733-ADA-DTG Document 22 Filed 01/24/23 Page 1 of 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED.”
Case 6:22-cv-00733 · W.D. Tex. · closed 24 January 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-00733?
6:22-cv-00733 is a patent infringement action brought by M4siz Limited against Nike, filed on 6 Jul 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 24 January 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:22-cv-00733?
US6526402B2 (“Searching procedures”), assigned to M4SIZ LIMITED, currently inactive. The record also lists Searching procedures.
How was case 6:22-cv-00733 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. ECF No. 21. The report recommends that this Court grant Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (ECF No. 11). The report and recommendation was filed on January 6, 2023. A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). As of t
How long did case 6:22-cv-00733 take?
202 calendar days, from filing on 6 Jul 2022 to closure on 24 January 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-00733?
Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff M4siz. John Michael Guaragna, Peter Maggiore, Richard Mulloy and Tiffany C. Miller appear for defendant Nike.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-00733 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.