Book a demo

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

Try now
McOm IP v. Webster Financial | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-08772

McOm IP, LLC v. Webster Financial Corporation

1:23-cv-08772 S.D.N.Y. Closed US8862508B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 5 Oct 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and closed 25 Oct 2023, with US8862508B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8862508B2
Application no.
US11/559894
Case no.
1:23-cv-08772
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
S.D.N.Y.
Court level
District Court
Case region
New York
Chief judge
Mary Kay Vyskocil
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
5 Oct 2023 – 25 Oct 2023
Duration
20 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
System and method for unifying e-banking touch points and providing personalized financial services
Validity challenges
1 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:23-cv-08772, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 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
US8862508B2 Active App. US11/559894

System and method for unifying e-banking touch points and providing personalized financial services

A system and method for delivering a retail banking multi-channel solution that unifies interactive electronic banking touch points to provide personalized financial services to customers and a common point of control for financial institutions is provided.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
14 Oct 2014
Earliest priority
14 Nov 2005
Est. expiry
2 Aug 2028
Validity challenges
1 on recordIPR2022-00055 · Patentability · filed by Unified Patents, LLC
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06Q40/00
Examiner
SHAIKH, MOHAMMAD Z
US8862508B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8862508B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
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

AttorneyForRole
David John HoffmanMcOm IP, LLCPlaintiff
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

“Pursuant to FederalRule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, mComIP, LLC, files this notice of voluntary dismissal ofthisaction forall ofPlaintiff’sclaimsas defendant has notanswered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal ofPlaintiff’sclaims shall be WITHPREJUDICE as to theasserted patent. Each party shall bear its own costs,expensesand attorneys’ fees. Granted. SO ORDERED”

Case 1:23-cv-08772 · S.D.N.Y. · closed 25 October 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 1:23-cv-08772?

1:23-cv-08772 is a patent infringement action brought by McOm IP, LLC against Webster Financial Corporation, filed on 5 Oct 2023 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case closed on 25 October 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-08772?

US8862508B2 (“System and method for unifying e-banking touch points and providing personalized financial services”), assigned to MCOM IP, LLC, currently active. The record also lists System and method for unifying e-banking touch points and providing personalized financial services.

How was case 1:23-cv-08772 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to FederalRule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, mComIP, LLC, files this notice of voluntary dismissal ofthisaction forall ofPlaintiff’sclaimsas defendant has notanswered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal ofPlaintiff’sclaims shall be WITHPREJUDICE as to theasserted patent. Each party shall bear its own costs,expensesand attorneys’ fees. Granted. SO ORDERED”

What does voluntary dismissal mean?

A voluntary dismissal is one the plaintiff asks for rather than one the court imposes. Where both sides stipulate to it, it commonly signals a settlement that is not filed on the public docket.

How long did case 1:23-cv-08772 take?

20 calendar days, from filing on 5 Oct 2023 to closure on 25 October 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-08772?

Chief Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil presided. David John Hoffman is recorded as counsel for plaintiff McOm IP.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-08772 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-08772 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.