MDSave, Inc. et al. v. Sesame, Inc.
Infringement action filed 12 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 16 Aug 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US11170423B2US9123072B2
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-00636
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Richard G. Andrews
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 12 Jun 2023 – 16 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 65 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Network-based marketplace service for facilitating purchases of services and products · Provisioning medical resources triggered by a lifecycle event
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
Provisioning medical resources triggered by a lifecycle event
Apparatus and associated methods related to determining medical services appropriate to a patient in response to a patient lifecycle event: presenting the medical services to the patient for selection; optionally scheduling the selected medical services; and automatically presenting the selected services for prepayment. The patient lifecycle event may be, for example, a doctor’s order, diagnosis, condition change, payment, admission, or discharge. The services presented to the patient may be determined in response to, and as a function of, the lifecycle event. For example, the services presented may include procedures determined after the lifecycle event, in view of patient medical history. In an illustrative example, the services presented may be based on medical indication, contraindication, provider or facility availability, or patient scheduling preference, advantageously permitting more medically relevant, beneficial, convenient, or cost-effective services. Various examples may advantageously provide a discount for a service bundle provided at a particular time or facility or by an affiliated physician or medical group.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 9 Nov 2021
- Earliest priority
- 16 Aug 2013
- Est. expiry
- 15 Aug 2034
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KETCHEL, III, PAUL J. · AIPPERSPACH, RYAN · MARTIROSYAN, KAREN · OSBORNE, ANI · KAUFMAN, MARK · BISCHOFF, MICHAEL · SCHMIDT, DANIEL
- Classification
- G06Q40/00G06Q30/06G06Q50/22G06Q30/02G06Q20/06G06Q20/10G06Q20/38G16H40/20G16H10/60G16H20/00
- Prosecution counsel
- MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
- Examiner
- HAMILTON, LALITA M
Network-based marketplace service for facilitating purchases of services and products
An apparatus for facilitating purchases of services includes an application server providing a network service and maintaining a service offer database that comprises a plurality of service offer information records respectively associated with a plurality of service offers. The plurality of service offers include at least one service offer for a bundled set of services. Each information record comprises an indication of a primary service, a purchase price, a payment amount for a primary service, and compensation information for receiving payment for the primary service. Upon being accessed by user operating a client system, the network service is operable to receive an indication of a service offer being selected for purchase by the user, receive purchase information from the user specifying a funding source, and issue a request to the funding source for funds corresponding to the purchase price included in the information record associated with the selected service offer.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 1 Sep 2015
- Earliest priority
- 16 Aug 2013
- Est. expiry
- 15 Aug 2034
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record90019531 · EPR · filed by JOHAN EIDE
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KETCHEL, III, PAUL JOHN
- Classification
- G06Q30/00G06Q30/06G06Q50/22G06F17/30G16H10/60G16H70/20
- Prosecution counsel
- MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
- Examiner
- PALAVECINO, KATHLEEN
Parties of record
MDSave, Inc.
- Core tech
- G06Q40/00G06Q30/06G06Q50/22G06Q30/02
- Counsel
- Anthony J. Fuga · Brian P. Murray · R. David Donoghue · R. Touhey Myer
- Firm
- Kratz & Barry LLP
- Also named
- MDSave Shared Services, Inc.
Sesame, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Ab Henry · Chun Deng · Jason S. McManis · Karen Elizabeth Keller · Michael Killingsworth
- Firm
- Shaw Keller LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Anthony J. Fuga | MDSave, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Brian P. Murray | MDSave, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| R. David Donoghue | MDSave, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| R. Touhey Myer | MDSave, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Ab Henry | Sesame, Inc. | Defendant |
| Chun Deng | Sesame, Inc. | Defendant |
| Jason S. McManis | Sesame, Inc. | Defendant |
| Karen Elizabeth Keller | Sesame, Inc. | Defendant |
| Michael Killingsworth | Sesame, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Now come Plaintiffs, MDSave, Inc. and MDSave Shared Services, Inc., and Defendant, Sesame, Inc., by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate to the dismissal of all claims against Defendant Sesame, Inc. WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Case 1:23-cv-00636 · D. Del. · closed 16 August 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 1:23-cv-00636?
1:23-cv-00636 is a patent infringement action brought by MDSave, Inc. against Sesame, Inc., filed on 12 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 16 August 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-00636?
US11170423B2 (“Provisioning medical resources triggered by a lifecycle event”), assigned to MDSAVE SHARED SERVICES INC., currently active; US9123072B2 (“Network-based marketplace service for facilitating purchases of services and products”), assigned to MDSAVE SHARED SERVICES INC., currently active. The record also lists Network-based marketplace service for facilitating purchases of services and products and Provisioning medical resources triggered by a lifecycle event.
How was case 1:23-cv-00636 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Now come Plaintiffs, MDSave, Inc. and MDSave Shared Services, Inc., and Defendant, Sesame, Inc., by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate to the dismissal of all claims against Defendant Sesame, Inc. WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.”
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 1:23-cv-00636 take?
65 calendar days, from filing on 12 Jun 2023 to closure on 16 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00636?
Chief Judge Richard G. Andrews presided. Anthony J. Fuga, Brian P. Murray, R. David Donoghue and R. Touhey Myer are recorded as counsel for plaintiff MDSave. Ab Henry, Chun Deng, Jason S. McManis, Karen Elizabeth Keller and Michael Killingsworth appear for defendant Sesame.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00636 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.