S3G Technology, LLC v. The Collinson Group Limited
Infringement action filed 17 Aug 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 9 Jan 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US10831468B2US9940124B2US9304758B2
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-00315
- 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
- 17 Aug 2022 – 9 Jan 2023
- Duration
- 145 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine
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
Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine
A method including (i) displaying a first prompt by a terminal machine by running a terminal application, the terminal application comprising first computer-executable instructions and first code that conduct the terminal machine’s portion of a dialogue sequence between the terminal machine and a service provider machine, the first code comprising information to be translated, (ii) receiving entry of first data at the first prompt, (iii) communicating information associated with the first data to a provider application at the service provider machine, the provider application comprising second computer-executable instructions and second code that conduct the service provider machine’s portion of the dialogue sequence, wherein the second code comprises information to be translated, and (iv) receiving third code that replaces or supplements at least a portion of the first code to produce first updated code, the first updated code adapting the terminal application to conduct a modified dialogue sequence with the service provider machine.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 10 Nov 2020
- Earliest priority
- 16 Apr 2010
- Est. expiry
- 21 Jul 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- CHATTERJEE, SHUVAM · CHATTERJEE, SANDEEP
- Classification
- H04L29/08G06F8/65H04W4/50G06F9/451H04W4/60H04L29/06G06F9/445G06F11/36
- Prosecution counsel
- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
- Examiner
- DAO, THUY
Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine
The system includes a terminal machine and a service provider machine. The terminal machine is modified using an update server machine. The terminal machine includes a terminal application for displaying a prompt in a first sequence of prompts and accepting a user data entry in a first series of data entries. The service provider machine includes a provider application for receiving the user data entry. The update server machine sends a dialogue module including a first and second set of updated code to the terminal machine and the service provider machine, respectively. The dialogue module does not modify computer-executable instructions saved on the terminal or service provider machines. The first and second set of updated code adapts the terminal application and provider application, respectively, to use a second sequence of prompts and a second sequence of data entries.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 10 Apr 2018
- Earliest priority
- 16 Apr 2010
- Est. expiry
- 21 Jul 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- CHATTERJEE, SANDEEP
- Classification
- H04M3/42G06F11/36G06F9/44H04W4/00G06F9/445H04M3/493H04M3/487H04M11/00H04L29/08H04W4/60
- Prosecution counsel
- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
- Examiner
- DAO, THUY
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
S3G Technology, LLC
- Core tech
- H04L29/08G06F8/65H04W4/50G06F9/451
- Counsel
- Charles Ainsworth · Gregory S. Cordrey · Stanley M. Gibson
- Firm
- Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (Irvine), Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (Los Angeles), Parker Bunt & Ainsworth PC
The Collinson Group Limited
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Earl Glenn Thames Jr.
- Firm
- Potter Minston LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Charles Ainsworth | S3G Technology, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Gregory S. Cordrey | S3G Technology, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Stanley M. Gibson | S3G Technology, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Earl Glenn Thames Jr. | The Collinson Group Limited | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is Plaintiff S3G Technology LLC’s Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. No. 32) as to Defendant The Collinson Group Limited pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES. All claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief between these parties not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE Member Case No. 2:22-CV-00315- JRG-RSP and MAINTAIN AS OPEN Lead Case No. 2:22-CV-00361-JRG-RSP as other claims and parties remain. RODNEY GILSTRAP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 9th day of January, 2023.”
Case 2:22-cv-00315 · E.D. Tex. · 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 2:22-cv-00315?
2:22-cv-00315 is a patent infringement action brought by S3G Technology, LLC against The Collinson Group Limited, filed on 17 Aug 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 9 January 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:22-cv-00315?
US10831468B2 (“Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine”), assigned to S3G TECHNOLOGY LLC, currently active; US9940124B2 (“Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine”), assigned to S3G TECHNOLOGY LLC, currently active; US9304758B2 (“Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine”), assigned to S3G TECHNOLOGY LLC. The record also lists Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine.
How was case 2:22-cv-00315 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Plaintiff S3G Technology LLC’s Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. No. 32) as to Defendant The Collinson Group Limited pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES. All claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief between these parties not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE Member Case No. 2:22-CV-00315- JRG-RSP and MAINTAIN AS OPEN Lead Case No. 2:22-CV-00361-JRG-RSP as other claims and parties remain. RODNEY GILSTRAP UNIT
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 2:22-cv-00315 take?
145 calendar days, from filing on 17 Aug 2022 to closure on 9 January 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-00315?
Charles Ainsworth, Gregory S. Cordrey and Stanley M. Gibson are recorded as counsel for plaintiff S3G Technology. Earl Glenn Thames Jr. appears for defendant The Collinson Group.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-00315 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.