Optinetix Israel, Ltd. v. Michaels Cos.
Infringement action filed 18 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 12 Oct 2023, with US7349668B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7349668B2
- Application no.
- US10/296439
- Case no.
- 9:22-cv-00189
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Michael J. Truncale
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 18 Nov 2022 – 12 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 328 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Systems and methods for embedding commercial information into broadcast media
- 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 embedding commercial information into broadcast media
There are disclosed systems, methods and processes for the distribution of information, typically digital information that is distributed actively, through broadcast media such as television and radio, displays, such as signage, etc., or passively, through displays such as signage or the like. The information can be captured from broadcasted transmissions, scanned from a display, or obtained by being transmitted to the user, who responded to a broadcast with a transmission to a receiving point during a period synchronized with the broadcast, requesting the information sent to his transmitted address. The captured or obtained information may include coupons or the like, that may be redeemed after being successfully captured or obtained. Redemption may be either on-line, where a transmission of coupon information is transmitted to a call center, that places a product order with a supplier and handles payment details, or off-line, where the user takes to coupon to the retailer, for redemption at the point of sale.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 25 Mar 2008
- Earliest priority
- 31 May 2000
- Est. expiry
- 29 Nov 2022
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ILAN, GABRIEL · MORAG, MEIR
- Classification
- H04B15/00G06Q30/02H04H1/00H04H60/48H04H60/63H04H60/91H04N7/08H04N7/16H04N7/173H04N21/2543H04N21/41H04N21/4784H04N21/81
- Examiner
- GESESSE, TILAHUN
Parties of record
Optinetix Israel, Ltd.
- Core tech
- H04B15/00G06Q30/02H04H1/00H04H60/48
- Counsel
- Kirk Anderson
- Firm
- Budo Law PC (CO)
Michaels Cos.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- James David Tuck · Victor Calvin Johnson
- Firm
- Dentons US LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Kirk Anderson | Optinetix Israel, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| James David Tuck | Michaels Cos. | Defendant |
| Victor Calvin Johnson | Michaels Cos. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice. [Dkt. 39]. The Parties have reached a final agreement on the settlement of the claims made in this matter and all other claims or counterclaims that might have been brought herein. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees and costs. It is further ORDERED that all pending motions filed herein are DENIED AS MOOT”
Case 9:22-cv-00189 · E.D. Tex. · closed 12 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 9:22-cv-00189?
9:22-cv-00189 is a patent infringement action brought by Optinetix Israel, Ltd. against Michaels Cos., filed on 18 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 12 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 9:22-cv-00189?
US7349668B2 (“Systems and methods for embedding commercial information into broadcast media”), assigned to OPTINETIX (ISRAEL) LTD., currently inactive. The record also lists Systems and methods for embedding commercial information into broadcast media.
How was case 9:22-cv-00189 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice. [Dkt. 39]. The Parties have reached a final agreement on the settlement of the claims made in this matter and all other claims or counterclaims that might have been brought herein. It is therefore ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, and the Parties shall bear their own attorney’s fees and costs. It is further ORDERED that all pending motions filed herein are DENIED AS MOOT”
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 9:22-cv-00189 take?
328 calendar days, from filing on 18 Nov 2022 to closure on 12 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 9:22-cv-00189?
Chief Judge Michael J. Truncale presided. Kirk Anderson is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Optinetix Israel. James David Tuck and Victor Calvin Johnson appear for defendant Michaels Cos..
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 9:22-cv-00189 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.