Book a demo

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

Try now
Onstream Media v. Softermii | Patent Lawsuit 6:23-cv-00390

Onstream Media, Corp. v. Softermii, Inc.

6:23-cv-00390 W.D. Tex. Closed 9 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 19 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 14 Sep 2023, with 9 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
6:23-cv-00390
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
David Alan Ezra
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
19 May 2023 – 14 Sep 2023
Duration
118 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed without Prejudice
Products & marks
Remotely accessed virtual recording room
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:23-cv-00390, 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
US10848707B2 Inactive App. US16/865756

Remotely accessed virtual recording room

An audio/video stream recording, storage, and delivery system 10 utilizes an Internet-based browser connection. The system 10 includes recording software 20, storage memory 30, a code generator 40, and a user interface 50. Preferably, the recording software 20 is located on the host back end 60 where it processes and records audio and video material that originates from the user front end 70 and is streamed to the host back end. The storage memory 30, which is also located on the host back end 60, stores the recorded audio and video material. The user interface 50 to the system provides a user located at the user front end 70 with remote access to a virtual recording room. The user interface 50 further enables the user to record audio and video material streamed from the user front end 70 by activating the recording software 20 located on the host back end 60. This is accomplished without requiring recording functionality on the user front end 70. The code generator 30 produces code associated with the recorded audio and video material. This code can be easily copied and pasted to an additional location 80, such as an auction website. Activating the code pasted at the additional location 80 provides access to the recorded audio and video material from the additional location while allowing the recorded audio and video material to remain stored at the host back end 60.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
24 Nov 2020
Est. expiry
24 Mar 2024
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04N5/77H04N7/173G11B27/031H04N21/643H04N21/61H04N21/4782H04N21/232H04N21/475H04N21/658H04N21/6587H04N21/4143H04N21/2747H04N21/231H04N21/2543H04N5/91
Prosecution counsel
PLUMSEA LAW GROUP, LLC
Examiner
LANGHNOJA, KUNAL
US10848707B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10848707B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US9467728B2 Active App. US12/110691

Remotely accessed virtual recording room

An audio/video stream recording, storage, and delivery system 10 utilizes an Internet-based browser connection. The system 10 includes recording software 20, storage memory 30, a code generator 40, and a user interface 50. Preferably, the recording software 20 is located on the host back end 60 where it processes and records audio and video material that originates from the user front end 70 and is streamed to the host back end. The storage memory 30, which is also located on the host back end 60, stores the recorded audio and video material. The user interface 50 to the system provides a user located at the user front end 70 with remote access to a virtual recording room. The user interface 50 further enables the user to record audio and video material streamed from the user front end 70 by activating the recording software 20 located on the host back end 60. This is accomplished without requiring recording functionality on the user front end 70. The code generator 30 produces code associated with the recorded audio and video material. This code can be easily copied and pasted to an additional location 80, such as an auction website. Activating the code pasted at the additional location 80 provides access to the recorded audio and video material from the additional location while allowing the recorded audio and video material to remain stored at the host back end 60.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
11 Oct 2016
Est. expiry
16 Dec 2027
Validity challenges
1 on recordIPR2020-01525 · filed by Facebook, Inc.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04N5/00H04N21/2543H04N21/4143H04N21/475H04N21/658H04N21/6587H04N21/231H04N21/232H04N21/4782H04N21/61H04N21/643G06F17/30H04N21/2747H04N7/173H04N5/91
Prosecution counsel
PLUMSEA LAW GROUP, LLC
Examiner
FOSSELMAN, JOEL
US9467728B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9467728B2 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

“Plaintiff Onstream Media Corporation (“Onstream”) hereby dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i): 1. Onstream filed its Complaint in the above-titled action against Softermii, Inc. (“Softermii”) on May 19, 2023. 2. Softermii has not served an answer of 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. Accordingly, Onstream hereby dismisses this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).”

Case 6:23-cv-00390 · W.D. Tex. · closed 14 September 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 6:23-cv-00390?

6:23-cv-00390 is a patent infringement action brought by Onstream Media, Corp. against Softermii, Inc., filed on 19 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 14 September 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 6:23-cv-00390?

US10848707B2 (“Remotely accessed virtual recording room”), assigned to ONSTREAM MEDIA CORPORATION, currently inactive; US9467728B2 (“Remotely accessed virtual recording room”), assigned to ONSTREAM MEDIA CORPORATION, currently active; US10038930B2 (“Remotely accessed virtual recording room”), assigned to ONSTREAM MEDIA CORPORATION; US10951855B2 (“Remotely accessed virtual recording room”), assigned to ONSTREAM MEDIA CORPORATION; US11128833B2 (“Remotely accessed virtual recording room”), assigned to ONSTREAM MEDIA CORPORATION; US10200648B2 (“Remotely accessed virtual recording room”), assigned to ONSTREAM MEDIA CORPORATION; US10674109B2 (“Remotely accessed virtual recording room”), assigned to ONSTREAM MEDIA CORPORATION; US10694142B2 (“Remotely accessed virtual recording room”), assigned to ONSTREAM MEDIA CORPORATION; US9161068B2 (“Remotely accessed virtual recording room”), assigned to ONSTREAM MEDIA CORPORATION. The record also lists Remotely accessed virtual recording room.

How was case 6:23-cv-00390 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Onstream Media Corporation (“Onstream”) hereby dismisses this action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i): 1. Onstream filed its Complaint in the above-titled action against Softermii, Inc. (“Softermii”) on May 19, 2023. 2. Softermii has not served an answer of 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. Ac

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 6:23-cv-00390 take?

118 calendar days, from filing on 19 May 2023 to closure on 14 September 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00390?

Chief Judge David Alan Ezra presided. Chandran B. Iyer, Oded Burger, Ronald M. Daignault and Zachary H. Ellis are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Onstream Media.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:23-cv-00390 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00390 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.