Peter Pedersen v. Oracle
Infringement action filed 22 Apr 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 29 Aug 2023, with US6965920B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6965920B2
- Application no.
- US09/904270
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-00410
- 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
- 22 Apr 2022 – 29 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 494 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Transferred
- Products & marks
- Responsys platform
- Validity challenges
- 3 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
Profile responsive electronic message management system
A system and method for the central specification and management of how messages are distributed to recipients with the steps of: a recipient profile system for entering and storing rules about how to distribute specific types of messages and content from specific messengers to individual recipients, a messenger profile system where messengers can enter, store and maintain his identification information and the types of message services he/she will offer to recipients, a message input system where messengers manually or automatically can enter messages or upload message files for distribution to recipients with a valid recipient profile, an individual message generator combining the data from recipient profile and the message from the message input system into a plurality of individual messages for recipients as specified by the messenger.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 15 Nov 2005
- Est. expiry
- 20 Sep 2023
- Validity challenges
- 3 on recordIPR2023-00986 · Patentability · filed by ADOBE INCIPR2023-00029 · Patentability · filed by Unified Patents LLCIPR2023-00867 · Patentability · filed by Oracle
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- PEDERSEN, PETER HENRIK
- Classification
- H04L12/58
- Examiner
- FOLLANSBEE, JOHN
Parties of record
Peter Pedersen
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Ramey LLP
Oracle
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Aaron L. Morris · Charles S. Bullock · David Philip Whittlesey · Matthew G. Berkowitz · Patrick R. Colsher · Taylor Mauze · Yue (Joy) Wang
- Firm
- Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, Shearman & Sterling LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| William P. Ramey III | Peter Pedersen | Plaintiff |
| Aaron L. Morris | Oracle | Defendant |
| Charles S. Bullock | Oracle | Defendant |
| David Philip Whittlesey | Oracle | Defendant |
| Matthew G. Berkowitz | Oracle | Defendant |
| Patrick R. Colsher | Oracle | Defendant |
| Taylor Mauze | Oracle | Defendant |
| Yue (Joy) Wang | Oracle | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is Defendant Oracle Corporation’s Motion to Transfer this Case to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. ECF No. 36 (the “Motion”). Defendant Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) filed its Motion on June 7, 2023. Id. Plaintiff Peter Pedersen (“Pedersen”) then filed a Notice of Venue Discovery a week later. ECF No. 37. Ordinarily, non-movants have 14 days after the completion of venue discovery to file a response to a motion to transfer venue. See Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP) 4.3 – Patent Cases § VI (response due “14 days after the completion of venue or jurisdictional discovery, if such discovery is conducted; otherwise, 14 days after the Opening brief.”). Venue discovery closed August 16, 2023; thus, Pedersen’s response to Oracle’s Motion is due on August 30, 2023. See id. On August 17, 2023, however, Oracle filed a Notice of Non-Opposition to its Motion to Transfer to Austin Division, contending that Pedersen failed to conduct any such discovery pursuant to his Notice. ECF No. 39 at 1. Oracle therefore asserts that Pedersen’s response to Oracle’s Transfer Motion was due on June 21, 2023—14 days after the Motion was filed, as instructed in the Court’s OGP. Id. Pedersen similarly filed a Notion of Non-Opposition on August Case 6:22-cv-00410-ADA Document 43 Filed 08/24/23 Page 1 of 2 2 23, 2023, withdrawing its opposition to the Motion. ECF No. 40. Accordingly, the Court will treat the Motion as unopposed. Because Defendant Oracle Corporation’s Motion to Transfer this Case to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas (ECF No. 36) is unopposed, the Court GRANTS the Motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that that the above-styled case be TRANSFERRED to the Austin Division but remain on the docket of United States District Judge Alan D Albright. SIGNED this 24th day of August, 2023.”
Case 6:22-cv-00410 · W.D. Tex. · closed 29 August 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-00410?
6:22-cv-00410 is a patent infringement action brought by Peter Pedersen against Oracle, filed on 22 Apr 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 29 August 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:22-cv-00410?
US6965920B2 (“Profile responsive electronic message management system”), assigned to PEDERSEN, PETER HENRIK, currently inactive. The record also lists Responsys platform.
How was case 6:22-cv-00410 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Defendant Oracle Corporation’s Motion to Transfer this Case to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. ECF No. 36 (the “Motion”). Defendant Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) filed its Motion on June 7, 2023. Id. Plaintiff Peter Pedersen (“Pedersen”) then filed a Notice of Venue Discovery a week later. ECF No. 37. Ordinarily, non-movants have 14 days after the completion of venue discovery to file a response to a motion to transfer venue. See Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP) 4.3 – Patent Cases § VI (response due “14 days after the completion of venue or
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 6:22-cv-00410 take?
494 calendar days, from filing on 22 Apr 2022 to closure on 29 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-00410?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. William P. Ramey III is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Peter Pedersen. Aaron L. Morris, Charles S. Bullock, David Philip Whittlesey, Matthew G. Berkowitz, Patrick R. Colsher, Taylor Mauze and Yue (Joy) Wang appear for defendant Oracle.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-00410 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.