MOV-ology, LLC v. Oracle
Infringement action filed 19 Feb 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 13 Apr 2026, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US9286282B2US9280531B2US10769358B2US9589281B2
- Case no.
- 1:25-cv-00246
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 19 Feb 2025 – 13 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 418 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- product lines include “Cloud Infrastructure,” “Cloud Applications,” and “Hardware and Software.”
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
Obtaining data from abandoned electronic forms
Visitors that abandon electronic or computer-generated forms before completing and submitting the form are lost to business entities. Data obtained from abandoned electronic or computer-generated forms is used to identify these lost visitors. Sometimes a unique script embedded on the webpages scrapes the data from the forms. The obtained data is further utilized to market or remarket to the lost consumers by sending personalized messages via a preferred communication medium.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 15 Mar 2016
- Est. expiry
- 12 Aug 2034
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LING, III, THOMAS CHOW · NORTON, PETER IVESON
- Classification
- G06F17/24G06F17/27G06Q30/02G06F40/143
- Prosecution counsel
- Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
- Examiner
- KELLS, ASHER
Marketing to consumers using data obtained from abandoned electronic forms
Visitors that abandon electronic or computer-generated forms before completing and submitting the form are lost to business entities. Data obtained from abandoned electronic or computer-generated forms is used to identify these lost visitors. Sometimes a unique script embedded on the webpages scrapes the data from the forms. The obtained data is further utilized to market or remarket to the lost consumers by sending personalized messages via a preferred communication medium. Electronic form events can be tracked and the obtained data and the event tracking information can be compiled into reports. Patterns in the obtained data can be evaluated to provide revisions to the electronic forms.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 8 Mar 2016
- Earliest priority
- 25 Nov 2013
- Est. expiry
- 18 Sep 2034
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LING, III, THOMAS CHOW · NORTON, PETER IVESON
- Classification
- G06F17/24G06F17/27G06Q30/02G06F40/143
- Prosecution counsel
- Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
- Examiner
- KELLS, ASHER
Also asserted in this case
2 moreThe docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
MOV-ology, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F17/24G06F17/27G06Q30/02G06F40/143
- Counsel
- Jonathan DeBlois · Karl Anthony Rupp · Kevin Gannon · Patrick A. Fitch · Robert R. Gilman
- Firm
- Prince Lobel Tye LLP, Sorey & Hoover LLP
Oracle
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Amit Makker · Jeffrey G. Homrig · Miriam G. Cabello · Paige Arnette Amstutz · Tara D. Elliott · Tiffany C. Weston
- Firm
- Latham & Watkins LLP, Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jonathan DeBlois | MOV-ology, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Karl Anthony Rupp | MOV-ology, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Kevin Gannon | MOV-ology, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Patrick A. Fitch | MOV-ology, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Robert R. Gilman | MOV-ology, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Amit Makker | Oracle | Defendant |
| Jeffrey G. Homrig | Oracle | Defendant |
| Miriam G. Cabello | Oracle | Defendant |
| Paige Arnette Amstutz | Oracle | Defendant |
| Tara D. Elliott | Oracle | Defendant |
| Tiffany C. Weston | Oracle | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice. It is hereby: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall mark this case CLOSED. All parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Case 1:25-cv-00246 · W.D. Tex. · closed 13 April 2026
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 1:25-cv-00246?
1:25-cv-00246 is a patent infringement action brought by MOV-ology, LLC against Oracle, filed on 19 Feb 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 13 April 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 1:25-cv-00246?
US9286282B2 (“Obtaining data from abandoned electronic forms”), assigned to MOV-OLOGY, LLC, currently active; US9280531B2 (“Marketing to consumers using data obtained from abandoned electronic forms”), assigned to MOV-OLOGY, LLC, currently active; US10769358B2 (“Obtaining data from incomplete electronic forms”), assigned to MOV-OLOGY, LLC; US9589281B2 (“Obtaining data from incomplete electronic forms”), assigned to MOV-OLOGY, LLC. The record also lists product lines include “Cloud Infrastructure,” “Cloud Applications,” and “Hardware and Software.”.
How was case 1:25-cv-00246 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice. It is hereby: ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk shall mark this case CLOSED. All parties shall bear their 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 1:25-cv-00246 take?
418 calendar days, from filing on 19 Feb 2025 to closure on 13 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-00246?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Jonathan DeBlois, Karl Anthony Rupp, Kevin Gannon, Patrick A. Fitch and Robert R. Gilman are recorded as counsel for plaintiff MOV-ology. Amit Makker, Jeffrey G. Homrig, Miriam G. Cabello, Paige Arnette Amstutz, Tara D. Elliott and Tiffany C. Weston appear for defendant Oracle.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-00246 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.