Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. ADT Inc.
Infringement action filed 9 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 27 Sep 2023, with US8856221B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8856221B2
- Application no.
- US13/652034
- Case no.
- 6:23-cv-00339
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Fred Biery
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 9 May 2023 – 27 Sep 2023
- Duration
- 141 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- System and method for storing broadcast content in a cloud-based computing environment
- Validity challenges
- 2 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
System and method for storing broadcast content in a cloud-based computing environment
A system, method and device for media content storage and delivery. A server has a receiver in communication with a processor. The receiver receives a request message. The request message includes media data indicating requested media content and a consumer device identifier corresponding to a consumer device. The processor determines whether the consumer device identifier corresponds to a registered consumer device. If the processor determines that the consumer device identifier corresponds to the registered consumer device, then the processor determines whether the request message is one of a storage request message and a content request message. If the request message is the storage request message, then the processor is further configured to determine whether the requested media content is available for storage. If the request message is the content request message, then the processor initiates delivery of the requested media content to the consumer device.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 7 Oct 2014
- Earliest priority
- 29 Aug 2011
- Est. expiry
- 21 Nov 2031
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordIPR2018-01001 · filed by Alarm.com, Inc.IPR2015-01181 · filed by Unified Patents Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ROTHSCHILD, LEIGH, M.
- Classification
- G06F15/16
- Prosecution counsel
- PATENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC
- Examiner
- FAN, HUA
Parties of record
Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F15/16
- Counsel
- Christopher A. Honea · M. Scott Fuller · Randall T. Garteiser · Rene A. Vazquez
- Firm
- Garteiser Honea PLLC
ADT Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Audrey Lo · Michael E. Zeliger · Steven P. Tepera
- Firm
- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Christopher A. Honea | Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC | Plaintiff |
| M. Scott Fuller | Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Randall T. Garteiser | Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Rene A. Vazquez | Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Audrey Lo | ADT Inc. | Defendant |
| Michael E. Zeliger | ADT Inc. | Defendant |
| Steven P. Tepera | ADT Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant ADT, Inc. (“Defendant”) hereby stipulate and agree: 1. All claims asserted by Plaintiff in the above-captioned action are hereby dismissed with prejudice”
Case 6:23-cv-00339 · W.D. Tex. · closed 27 September 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 6:23-cv-00339?
6:23-cv-00339 is a patent infringement action brought by Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC against ADT Inc., filed on 9 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 27 September 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00339?
US8856221B2 (“System and method for storing broadcast content in a cloud-based computing environment”), assigned to ROTHSCHILD BROADCAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, LLC, currently active. The record also lists System and method for storing broadcast content in a cloud-based computing environment.
How was case 6:23-cv-00339 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant ADT, Inc. (“Defendant”) hereby stipulate and agree: 1. All claims asserted by Plaintiff in the above-captioned action are hereby dismissed with prejudice”
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 6:23-cv-00339 take?
141 calendar days, from filing on 9 May 2023 to closure on 27 September 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00339?
Chief Judge Fred Biery presided. Christopher A. Honea, M. Scott Fuller, Randall T. Garteiser and Rene A. Vazquez are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems. Audrey Lo, Michael E. Zeliger and Steven P. Tepera appear for defendant ADT.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00339 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.