Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. Rockwell Automation, Inc.
Infringement action filed 16 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 24 Aug 2023, with US8856221B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8856221B2
- Application no.
- US13/652034
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-00371
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 16 Aug 2023 – 24 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 8 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Media content storage and delivery systems and services with its Plex Media Server
- 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
- Randall T. Garteiser
- Firm
- Garteiser Honea PLLC
Rockwell Automation, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Randall T. Garteiser | Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 2.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned case is voluntarily dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Id. at 1.) In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief in the abovecaptioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to MAINTAIN AS CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain.”
Case 2:23-cv-00371 · E.D. Tex. · closed 24 August 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 2:23-cv-00371?
2:23-cv-00371 is a patent infringement action brought by Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC against Rockwell Automation, Inc., filed on 16 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 24 August 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-00371?
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 Media content storage and delivery systems and services with its Plex Media Server.
How was case 2:23-cv-00371 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 2.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned case is voluntarily dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Id. at 1.) In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief in the abovecaptioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is di
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 2:23-cv-00371 take?
8 calendar days, from filing on 16 Aug 2023 to closure on 24 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00371?
Randall T. Garteiser is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00371 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.