S.M.R. Innovations, Ltd. et al. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.
Infringement action filed 2 May 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 9 Jan 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US10547648B2US9699223B2
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-00592
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 2 May 2022 – 9 Jan 2023
- Duration
- 252 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Routing of data including multimedia between electronic devices
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
Routing of data including multimedia between electronic devices
Rerouting apparatus for rerouting data including multimedia data. The apparatus is for association with electronic equipment and allows for routing the data to a device regarded as the most convenient for playing the media. The apparatus comprises an announcer device for indicating to surrounding equipment that associated equipment is available for rerouting, thereby to enable receipt of rerouted communications therefrom, and a scout device for scanning surroundings of the associated equipment to find out about compatible equipment in the vicinity, thereby to reroute communications thereto. The apparatus may be attached to any device having data processing capability, to enable rerouting of data and communications therebetween.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 28 Jan 2020
- Earliest priority
- 25 Jul 2002
- Est. expiry
- 21 Jan 2023
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2024-01048 · Patentability · filed by Apple
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHMUELI, ODED · YEHEZKEL, BENNY
- Classification
- H04L29/06H04M3/42H04L29/08H04M3/54
- Prosecution counsel
- PRTSI Inc.
- Examiner
- CHOWDHURY, HARUN
Routing of data including multimedia between electronic devices
Rerouting apparatus for rerouting data including multimedia data. The apparatus is for association with electronic equipment and allows for routing the data to a device regarded as the most convenie t for playing the media. The apparatus comprises an announcer device for indicating to surrounding equipment that associated equipment is available for rerouting, thereby to enable receipt of rerouted communications therefrom, and a scout device for scanning surroundings of the associated equipment to find out about compatible equipment in the vicinity, thereby to reroute communications thereto. The apparatus may be attached to any device having data processing capability, to enable rerouting of data and communications therebetween.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 4 Jul 2017
- Earliest priority
- 25 Jul 2002
- Est. expiry
- 11 Oct 2023
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2024-01047 · Patentability · filed by Apple, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHMUELI, ODED · YEHEZKEL, BENNY
- Classification
- H04W4/00H04M3/54H04M3/42H04L29/06H04L29/08
- Prosecution counsel
- PRTSI Inc.
- Examiner
- YAO, KWANG B
Parties of record
S.M.R. Innovations, Ltd.
- Core tech
- H04L29/06H04M3/42H04L29/08H04M3/54
- Counsel
- Cortney S. Alexander · Richard Charles Weinblatt · Stamatios Stamoulis
- Firm
- Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
- Also named
- Y.M.R Tech, Ltd.
Motorola Mobility, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Christopher S. Leah · Courtney S. Dabbiere · Richard W. Goldstucker · Rodger Dallery Smith II · Russell A. Korn · Steven D. Moore
- Firm
- Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Cortney S. Alexander | S.M.R. Innovations, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Richard Charles Weinblatt | S.M.R. Innovations, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Stamatios Stamoulis | S.M.R. Innovations, Ltd. | Plaintiff |
| Christopher S. Leah | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Defendant |
| Courtney S. Dabbiere | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Defendant |
| Richard W. Goldstucker | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Defendant |
| Rodger Dallery Smith II | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Defendant |
| Russell A. Korn | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Defendant |
| Steven D. Moore | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiffs S.M.R Innovations LTD and Y.M.R Tech LTD (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC (“Defendant”), through their attorneys of record, respectfully submit this joint stipulation of dismissal dismissing all claims of infringement that Plaintiffs raised in this action against Defendant with prejudice. All claims, defenses or counterclaims that Defendant raised are dismissed without prejudice. Each Party will bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses”
Case 1:22-cv-00592 · D. Del. · closed 9 January 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-00592?
1:22-cv-00592 is a patent infringement action brought by S.M.R. Innovations, Ltd. against Motorola Mobility, Inc., filed on 2 May 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 9 January 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:22-cv-00592?
US10547648B2 (“Routing of data including multimedia between electronic devices”), assigned to S.M.R. INNOVATIONS LTD, currently inactive; US9699223B2 (“Routing of data including multimedia between electronic devices”), assigned to S.M.R. INNOVATIONS LTD, currently inactive. The record also lists Routing of data including multimedia between electronic devices.
How was case 1:22-cv-00592 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiffs S.M.R Innovations LTD and Y.M.R Tech LTD (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC (“Defendant”), through their attorneys of record, respectfully submit this joint stipulation of dismissal dismissing all claims of infringement that Plaintiffs raised in this action against Defendant with prejudice. All claims, defenses or counterclaims that Defendant raised are dismissed without prejudice. Each Party will bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses”
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-00592 take?
252 calendar days, from filing on 2 May 2022 to closure on 9 January 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-00592?
Cortney S. Alexander, Richard Charles Weinblatt and Stamatios Stamoulis are recorded as counsel for plaintiff S.M.R. Innovations. Christopher S. Leah, Courtney S. Dabbiere, Richard W. Goldstucker, Rodger Dallery Smith II, Russell A. Korn and Steven D. Moore appear for defendant Motorola Mobility.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-00592 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.