Medallia, Inc. v. EchoSpan, Inc.
Infringement action filed 11 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and closed 22 Aug 2023, with US10963639B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed in part.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10963639B2
- Application no.
- US16/297137
- Case no.
- 3:22-cv-01243
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- M.D. Fla.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Florida
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 11 Nov 2022 – 22 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 284 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed in Part
- Products & marks
- Systems and methods for identifying sentiment in text strings
- 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
Systems and methods for identifying sentiment in text strings
Embodiments discussed herein refer to systems and methods for identifying relevantly similar sentiment in text strings.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 30 Mar 2021
- Est. expiry
- 29 Aug 2039
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- STEWART, GREGOR · KUO, TZU-TING · YEAGER, ANDREW
- Classification
- G06F40/253G06F40/30G06F16/904G06F16/906G06F40/216G06N20/00
- Prosecution counsel
- KXT Law LLP
- Examiner
- SPOONER, LAMONT M
Parties of record
Medallia, Inc.
- Core tech
- G06F40/253G06F40/30G06F16/904G06F16/906
- Counsel
- Daniel Ben Ravicher · Ognian V. Shentov
- Firm
- Zeisler PLLC
EchoSpan, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jennifer R. Virostko · Jonathan R. Chally · Michael E. Lockamy
- Firm
- Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault, Pillans & Coxe PA, Councill, Gunnemann & Chally, LLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Daniel Ben Ravicher | Medallia, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Ognian V. Shentov | Medallia, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jennifer R. Virostko | EchoSpan, Inc. | Defendant |
| Jonathan R. Chally | EchoSpan, Inc. | Defendant |
| Michael E. Lockamy | EchoSpan, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that venue is improper. In the interest of justice, the Court will transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia. To this extent, EchoSpan’s Motion is due to be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Defendant EchoSpan, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, Transfer to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Doc. 10) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Case 3:22-cv-01243-MMH-LLL Document 23 Filed 08/21/23 Page 24 of 25 PageID 210 – 25 – a. The Motion is granted to the extent that the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. b. In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED. 2. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to terminate all pending motions and close the file. DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida this 21st day of August, 2023.”
Case 3:22-cv-01243 · M.D. Fla. · closed 22 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 3:22-cv-01243?
3:22-cv-01243 is a patent infringement action brought by Medallia, Inc. against EchoSpan, Inc., filed on 11 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The case closed on 22 August 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 3:22-cv-01243?
US10963639B2 (“Systems and methods for identifying sentiment in text strings”), assigned to MEDALLIA, INC., currently active. The record also lists Systems and methods for identifying sentiment in text strings.
How was case 3:22-cv-01243 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed in part. The termination text reads: “For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that venue is improper. In the interest of justice, the Court will transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia. To this extent, EchoSpan’s Motion is due to be granted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. Defendant EchoSpan, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, Transfer to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Doc. 10) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Case 3:22-cv-01243-MMH-LLL Document 23 Filed 08/21/23 Page 24 of 25 PageID 210 – 25 – a. The Motion is granted to the extent tha
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 3:22-cv-01243 take?
284 calendar days, from filing on 11 Nov 2022 to closure on 22 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:22-cv-01243?
Daniel Ben Ravicher and Ognian V. Shentov are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Medallia. Jennifer R. Virostko, Jonathan R. Chally and Michael E. Lockamy appear for defendant EchoSpan.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:22-cv-01243 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.