Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC v. Curiositystream, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 29 Apr 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 2 Feb 2023, with US7650376B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7650376B1
- Application no.
- US09/717184
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-00585
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- Richard G. Andrews
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 29 Apr 2022 – 2 Feb 2023
- Duration
- 279 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Content distribution system for distributing content over a network, with particular applicability to distributing high-bandwidth content
- Validity challenges
- 1 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
Content distribution system for distributing content over a network, with particular applicability to distributing high-bandwidth content
The invention facilitates the distribution of content over a network (e.g., the Internet, a television network) and, in particular, the distribution of high-bandwidth (i.e., data intensive) content, such as video content or customized content. At least one of the sites of the network (a “core server”) is controlled (at least in part) by an entity that desires to distribute content to one or more other network sites (“client(s)”) at which the content is to be used. In accordance with the invention, a core server uses one or more other network sites (“node server(s)”) to distribute content on behalf of the core server to one or more clients. In particular, in accordance with one embodiment of the invention, the entit(ies) having control (at least in part) of each of one or more network sites (node server(s)) can be recruited to use their site(s) to distribute content on behalf of a core server to one or more clients.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 19 Jan 2010
- Earliest priority
- 27 Mar 2000
- Est. expiry
- 8 Aug 2024
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record90019550 · EPR
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BLUMENAU, TREVOR I.
- Classification
- G06F15/16H04L12/18H04L29/06H04L29/08H04N5/00
- Examiner
- TRAN, PHILIP B
Parties of record
Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F15/16H04L12/18H04L29/06H04L29/08
- Counsel
- David A. Bilson · John C. Phillips Jr. · Shea N. Palavan
- Firm
- Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall PA, Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall PA
Curiositystream, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
- Also named
- Learn25, Inc. · One Day University a/ka/ Curiosity, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| David A. Bilson | Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC | Plaintiff |
| John C. Phillips Jr. | Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Shea N. Palavan | Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC hereby respectfully gives notice that this action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. Defendants CuriosityStream Inc. a/k/a CuriosityStream Operating Inc. a/k/a Curiosity, Inc., Learn25, Inc., and One Day University a/k/a Curiosity, Inc. have not served an answer or motion for summary judgment or otherwise responded to the Complaint (D.I. 1) in this action.”
Case 1:22-cv-00585 · D. Del. · closed 2 February 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 1:22-cv-00585?
1:22-cv-00585 is a patent infringement action brought by Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC against Curiositystream, Inc., filed on 29 Apr 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 2 February 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-00585?
US7650376B1 (“Content distribution system for distributing content over a network, with particular applicability to distributing high-bandwidth content”), assigned to VIDEO PROTOCOLS, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Content distribution system for distributing content over a network, with particular applicability to distributing high-bandwidth content.
How was case 1:22-cv-00585 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC hereby respectfully gives notice that this action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. Defendants CuriosityStream Inc. a/k/a CuriosityStream Operating Inc. a/k/a Curiosity, Inc., Learn25, Inc., and One Day University a/k/a Curiosity, Inc. have not served an answer or motion for summary judgment or otherwise responded to the Complaint (D.I. 1) in this action.”
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 1:22-cv-00585 take?
279 calendar days, from filing on 29 Apr 2022 to closure on 2 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-00585?
Chief Judge Richard G. Andrews presided. David A. Bilson, John C. Phillips Jr. and Shea N. Palavan are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Quantum Technology Innovations.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-00585 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.