Infringement action filed 13 Jan 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 8 May 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: appeal dismissed.
A method of and apparatus for transmitting video images preferably allows a specially trained individual to remotely supervise, instruct, and observe administration of medical tests conducted at remote locations. This apparatus preferably includes a source device, a transmitting device, and at least one remote receiving device. Preferably, the transmitting device and the remote receiving device communicate over a network such as the Internet Protocol network. Alternatively, the transmitting device and the receiving device communicate over any appropriate data network. The transmitting device transmits the video images to the remote receiving device either for live display through the source device or for pre-recorded display through a video recorder device. The remote receiving device is also capable of communicating with the transmitting device while simultaneously receiving video images. The source device is preferably a medical test device such as an ultrasound, a sonogram, an echocardiogram, an angioplastigram, and the like. This medical test device preferably generates video images for the transmitting device. The transmitting device captures the video images in real-time from the source device and compresses these video images utilizing a compression algorithm prior to transmitting data representing the video images to the remote receiving device. Remote users utilizing the remote receiving devices are capable of remotely controlling a number of parameters relating to the source device and the transmitting device. Such parameters include image quality, storage of the video images on the transmitting device, manipulating and controlling the source device, and the like.
The invention relates to the extraction of pharmaceutically active components from plant materials, and more particularly to the preparation of a botanical drug substance (BDS) for incorporation in to a medicament. It also relates to a BDS, for use in pharmaceutical formulations. In particular it relates to BDS comprising cannabinoids obtained by extraction from cannabis.
22-1363 is a patent infringement action brought by Pure Hemp Collective, Inc. against United Cannabis, Corp., filed on 13 Jan 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 8 May 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 22-1363?
US7257158B1 (“System for transmitting video images over a computer network to a remote receiver”), assigned to SECURE CAM, LLC, currently inactive; US9730911B2 (“Cannabis extracts and methods of preparing and using same”), assigned to NASCENT PHARMA LLC, currently active. The record also lists Cannabis extracts and methods of preparing and using same.
How was case 22-1363 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is appeal dismissed. The termination text reads: "THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED"
How long did case 22-1363 take?
480 calendar days, from filing on 13 Jan 2022 to closure on 8 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1363?
James R. Gourley is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Pure Hemp Collective. Orion Armon. appears for defendant United Cannabis.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 22-1363 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1363 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.
Patsnap Eureka
Eureka AI Agent
Help us improve
Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.
