Book a demo

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

Try now
Nimitz Technologies v. C. H. Robinson Worldwide | Patent Lawsuit 6:22-cv-01236

Nimitz Technologies, LLC v. C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.

6:22-cv-01236 W.D. Tex. Closed US7848328B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 30 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 1 Mar 2023, with US7848328B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7848328B2
Application no.
US12/167412
Case no.
6:22-cv-01236
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
30 Nov 2022 – 1 Mar 2023
Duration
91 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Broadcast content encapsulation
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:22-cv-01236, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. 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
US7848328B2 Active App. US12/167412

Broadcast content encapsulation

Components of a transmitted service delivering multiple versions of content are mapped to streams carrying data for those multiple versions. The data streams are encapsulated into User Datagram Protocol (UDP) packets; the UDP destination port fields of the packets are given component-identifying values. A user equipment (UE) receiving the transmitted service identifies desired components based on the UDP destination port field values. The UE further encapsulates desired component UDP packets into Internet Protocol (IP) packets, and may assign component-identifying values to fields of the IP packets (e.g., the IP source address and/or IP destination address).

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
7 Dec 2010
Est. expiry
22 Oct 2028
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04J3/24
Prosecution counsel
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
Examiner
NGUYEN, STEVEN H
US7848328B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7848328B2 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

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

“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned action (the “Action”) with prejudice. Because this notice of dismissal is being filed before service by the defendant of either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Action is effective upon filing of this notice.”

Case 6:22-cv-01236 · W.D. Tex. · closed 1 March 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 6:22-cv-01236?

6:22-cv-01236 is a patent infringement action brought by Nimitz Technologies, LLC against C. H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., filed on 30 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 1 March 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 6:22-cv-01236?

US7848328B2 (“Broadcast content encapsulation”), assigned to NIMITZ TECHNOLOGIES LLC, currently active. The record also lists Broadcast content encapsulation.

How was case 6:22-cv-01236 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned action (the “Action”) with prejudice. Because this notice of dismissal is being filed before service by the defendant of either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff’s dismissal of the Action is effective upon filing of this notice.”

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 6:22-cv-01236 take?

91 calendar days, from filing on 30 Nov 2022 to closure on 1 March 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-01236?

Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Raymond W. Mort III is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Nimitz Technologies.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:22-cv-01236 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-01236 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.