Infringement action filed 24 Aug 2022 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 12 Dec 2023, with US10931911B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: judgment on the merits for defendant.
Disclosed herein are methods and systems for creating and disseminating of audio and video content generated by a user over a network. In one aspect of the present disclosure, a request to create audio content over a network is received. In another aspect of the present disclosure a request to create multimedia content comprising audio and video content over a network is received. One embodiment includes presenting the user with a plurality of compositions, receiving a request from the user to add a specific composition, presenting a lyric using text submitted by the user, recording an audio recording generated by the user, wherein the specific composition is playing during the recording of the audio recording, and providing editing capability to the specific composition, the song lyric and audio recording.
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
"Final judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Snap Inc. and against Plaintiff Playvuu, Inc. on Plaintiff’s claims for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,931,911, which claims are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff shall take nothing by its complaint."
Case 2:22-cv-06019 · C.D. Cal. · closed 12 December 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.
2:22-cv-06019 is a patent infringement action brought by Playvuu, Inc. against Snap, Inc., filed on 24 Aug 2022 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 12 December 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:22-cv-06019?
US10931911B2 (“Creating and disseminating of user generated content over a network”), assigned to PLAYVUU, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Playvuu App and Snapchat App.
How was case 2:22-cv-06019 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is judgment on the merits for defendant. The termination text reads: "Final judgment is entered in favor of Defendant Snap Inc. and against Plaintiff Playvuu, Inc. on Plaintiff’s claims for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,931,911, which claims are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff shall take nothing by its complaint."
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 2:22-cv-06019 take?
475 calendar days, from filing on 24 Aug 2022 to closure on 12 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-06019?
Alekzandir Morton, Brock S. Weber, Carolina A. Stiles, Christopher Kao, David J. Tsai, John Joseph Steger and Michael S. Horikawa are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Playvuu. Daniel N. Yannuzzi, Darren M. Franklin, Dominique Elizabeth Combs, Eric Kyle Gill, Jennifer K. Ayers, Scott R. Miller and Steven G. Schortgen appear for defendant Snap.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:22-cv-06019 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-06019 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.
