Qualserve Solutions, LLC v. AT&T, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 16 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and closed 13 Nov 2023, with US8046489B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8046489B2
- Application no.
- US11/908907
- Case no.
- 5:23-cv-01209
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Ohio
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Ohio
- Chief judge
- Patricia A. Gaughan
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 16 Jun 2023 – 13 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 150 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Office@Hand” · Quality-of-Service (QoS) processor · Service Level Agreement (SLA) registry
- 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
System and method for processing quality-of-service parameters in a communication network
A system processes a communication session to be set up via a communication path from an originating location to a destination location through a network. A common Service Level Agreement (SLA) registry contains Quality-of-Service (QoS) related parameters representative of QoS valid for the domains between originating and destination locations. A QoS processor processes QoS related parameters retrieved from the SLA registry, for predicting the end-to-end QoS values for one communication path between originating and destination locations and for ranking or selecting or both ranking and selecting, based on predicted end-to-end QoS values, one or more recommended communication paths between the originating and destination locations. The QoS processor processes QoS parameters retrieved from the SLA registry and predicts end-to-end QoS values representative of all communication paths between network domains and for storing said predicted end-to-end QoS values in a QoS registry for selection and/or ranking actions for new session requests.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 25 Oct 2011
- Earliest priority
- 18 Mar 2005
- Est. expiry
- 8 Nov 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BLOM, MARCUS ANTHONIUS · PHILLIPSON, FRANK
- Classification
- G06F15/173
- Prosecution counsel
- LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD
- Examiner
- NGUYEN, PHUOC
Parties of record
Qualserve Solutions, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F15/173
- Counsel
- Andrew S. Curfman · Howard L. Wernow
- Firm
- Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
AT&T, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
- Also named
- AT & T Services, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew S. Curfman | Qualserve Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Howard L. Wernow | Qualserve Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff Qualserve Solutions LLC and Defendant AT&T Services, Inc., by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby jointly stipulate and agree to dismiss all claims against Defendant AT&T Services, Inc. WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Case 5:23-cv-01209 · N.D. Ohio · closed 13 November 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 5:23-cv-01209?
5:23-cv-01209 is a patent infringement action brought by Qualserve Solutions, LLC against AT&T, Inc., filed on 16 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The case closed on 13 November 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 5:23-cv-01209?
US8046489B2 (“System and method for processing quality-of-service parameters in a communication network”), assigned to QUALSERVE SOLUTIONS LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Office@Hand”, Quality-of-Service (QoS) processor and Service Level Agreement (SLA) registry.
How was case 5:23-cv-01209 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Qualserve Solutions LLC and Defendant AT&T Services, Inc., by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby jointly stipulate and agree to dismiss all claims against Defendant AT&T Services, Inc. WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.”
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 5:23-cv-01209 take?
150 calendar days, from filing on 16 Jun 2023 to closure on 13 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 5:23-cv-01209?
Chief Judge Patricia A. Gaughan presided. Andrew S. Curfman and Howard L. Wernow are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Qualserve Solutions.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 5:23-cv-01209 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.