Noblewood IP, LLC v. Autozone, Inc.
Infringement action filed 27 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 13 Oct 2023, with US7941553B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7941553B2
- Application no.
- US10/624353
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-01125
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Orlando L. Garcia
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 27 Oct 2022 – 13 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 351 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Method and device for streaming a media file over a distributed information system
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record
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
Method and device for streaming a media file over a distributed information system
A method, device, and program product are provided for streaming a media file over a distributed information system to a client computer running a browser application. First, a server receives a request for a particular media file from the client computer. Then, the server dynamically generates a metafile, whereby said metafile contains information about the identification, location and format of the media file, and returns it back to the client computer. Advantageously, the server intercepts a download request for the actual media file and reinterprets the download request in into a request for receiving a corresponding metafile. Thus, instead of returning the requested media file, a metafile is returned that allows immediate streaming of the requested media file without the need of waiting for the download to be finished.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 10 May 2011
- Earliest priority
- 18 Oct 2002
- Est. expiry
- 22 Aug 2030
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2022-01111 · filed by Unified Patents, LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BAUMEISTER, SASCHA · SCHMID, BERNHARD
- Classification
- G06F15/16H04L65/1101
- Prosecution counsel
- IBM CORPORATION
- Examiner
- VAUGHN, JR., WILLIAM C
Parties of record
Noblewood IP, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F15/16H04L65/1101
- Counsel
- Raymond W. Mort III
- Firm
- The Mort Law Firm PLLC
Autozone, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Raymond W. Mort III | Noblewood IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Plaintiff, Noblewood IP LLC, hereby dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i): 1. Noblewood IP LLC filed its Complaint in the above-titled action against AutoZone, Inc. on October 27, 2022. 2. AutoZone, Inc. has not served an answer or a motion for summary judgment in this action. 3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. 4. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B) provides that such a dismissal is without prejudice. 5. Accordingly, Noblewood IP LLC hereby dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).”
Case 6:22-cv-01125 · W.D. Tex. · closed 13 October 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 6:22-cv-01125?
6:22-cv-01125 is a patent infringement action brought by Noblewood IP, LLC against Autozone, Inc., filed on 27 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 13 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:22-cv-01125?
US7941553B2 (“Method and device for streaming a media file over a distributed information system”), assigned to NOBLEWOOD IP LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Method and device for streaming a media file over a distributed information system.
How was case 6:22-cv-01125 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Plaintiff, Noblewood IP LLC, hereby dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i): 1. Noblewood IP LLC filed its Complaint in the above-titled action against AutoZone, Inc. on October 27, 2022. 2. AutoZone, Inc. has not served an answer or a motion for summary judgment in this action. 3. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 6:22-cv-01125 take?
351 calendar days, from filing on 27 Oct 2022 to closure on 13 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-01125?
Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia presided. Raymond W. Mort III is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Noblewood IP.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-01125 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.