Marble VOIP Partners, LLC v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
Infringement action filed 24 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas and closed 20 Jul 2023, with US7376129B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7376129B2
- Application no.
- US10/695856
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-02247
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Kan.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Kansas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 24 Jun 2022 – 20 Jul 2023
- Duration
- 391 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Transferred
- Products & marks
- Enabling collaborative applications using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based Voice over Internet protocol Networks (VoIP)
- 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
Enabling collaborative applications using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based Voice over Internet protocol Networks (VoIP)
A method and system for enabling voice over Internet for computer applications includes registering session initiation protocol (SIP) as a system service and providing SIP service through an application programming interface (API) to permit access to service functions by individual software applications. A SIP link is provided within a software application to permit user invocation of SIP service functions. The link may be passed as a parameter to permit external access to an invoked service function.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 20 May 2008
- Est. expiry
- 5 May 2026
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ACHARYA, ARUP · KANDLUR, DILIP DINKAR · MAHADEVAN, PRIYA · SHAE, ZON-YIN · SINGH, AAMEEK
- Classification
- H04L12/66H04L65/1104
- Prosecution counsel
- KINNEY & LANGE, P.A.
- Examiner
- TIEU, BIN K.
Parties of record
Marble VOIP Partners, LLC
- Core tech
- H04L12/66H04L65/1104
- Counsel
- Christopher J. Belter · James J. Kernell · Kyle D. Donnelly · Michael A. Siem · Michael J. Barresi
- Firm
- Avek IP LLC, Goldberg Segalla, LLP (NYC)
Zoom Video Communications, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Aaron E. Hankel · Andrew M. Long · Anita Liu · B. Trent Webb · Jason R. Mudd
- Firm
- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP (Houston), Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP (KC/Grand)
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Christopher J. Belter | Marble VOIP Partners, LLC | Plaintiff |
| James J. Kernell | Marble VOIP Partners, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Kyle D. Donnelly | Marble VOIP Partners, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Michael A. Siem | Marble VOIP Partners, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Michael J. Barresi | Marble VOIP Partners, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Aaron E. Hankel | Zoom Video Communications, Inc. | Defendant |
| Andrew M. Long | Zoom Video Communications, Inc. | Defendant |
| Anita Liu | Zoom Video Communications, Inc. | Defendant |
| B. Trent Webb | Zoom Video Communications, Inc. | Defendant |
| Jason R. Mudd | Zoom Video Communications, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant Zoom Video Communications, Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 49) is granted; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this case shall be transferred to the Northern District of California.”
Case 2:22-cv-02247 · D. Kan. · closed 20 July 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 2:22-cv-02247?
2:22-cv-02247 is a patent infringement action brought by Marble VOIP Partners, LLC against Zoom Video Communications, Inc., filed on 24 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The case closed on 20 July 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:22-cv-02247?
US7376129B2 (“Enabling collaborative applications using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based Voice over Internet protocol Networks (VoIP)”), assigned to MARBLE VOIP PARTNERS LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Enabling collaborative applications using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) based Voice over Internet protocol Networks (VoIP).
How was case 2:22-cv-02247 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Defendant Zoom Video Communications, Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 49) is granted; pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this case shall be transferred to the Northern District of California.”
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 2:22-cv-02247 take?
391 calendar days, from filing on 24 Jun 2022 to closure on 20 July 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-02247?
Christopher J. Belter, James J. Kernell, Kyle D. Donnelly, Michael A. Siem and Michael J. Barresi are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Marble VOIP Partners. Aaron E. Hankel, Andrew M. Long, Anita Liu, B. Trent Webb and Jason R. Mudd appear for defendant Zoom Video Communications.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-02247 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.