Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
S3G Technology v. Jo-Ann Stores | Patent Lawsuit 6:23-cv-00601

S3G Technology, LLC v. Jo-Ann Stores, Inc.

6:23-cv-00601 W.D. Tex. Closed 3 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 15 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 28 Nov 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
6:23-cv-00601
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Alan D Albright
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
15 Aug 2023 – 28 Nov 2023
Duration
105 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed with Prejudice
Products & marks
Jo-Ann Stores mobile applications for running the Android operating system and Jo-Ann Stores mobile applications for iOS2 (Defendant app) and its systems, methods, computing devices, including servers, software, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium that execute, run, store, support or facilitate the use of the Defendant app
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:23-cv-00601, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US9940124B2 Active App. US15/065757

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.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
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
Classification
H04M3/42G06F11/36G06F9/44H04W4/00G06F9/445H04M3/493H04M3/487H04M11/00H04L29/08H04W4/60
Prosecution counsel
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Examiner
DAO, THUY
US9940124B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9940124B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US8572571B2 Active App. US12/841113

Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine

A system including a terminal machine and a service provider machine is modified using a service provider 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.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
29 Oct 2013
Earliest priority
16 Apr 2010
Est. expiry
31 Mar 2032
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F9/44G06F9/445H04W4/60
Prosecution counsel
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Examiner
DAO, THUY
US8572571B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8572571B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

1 more

The docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.

Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Charles L. AinsworthS3G Technology, LLCPlaintiff
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Plaintiff S3G Technology LLC, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), hereby dismisses all claims between Plaintiff and Defendant Jo-Ann Stores, LLC WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”

Case 6:23-cv-00601 · W.D. Tex. · closed 28 November 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 6:23-cv-00601?

6:23-cv-00601 is a patent infringement action brought by S3G Technology, LLC against Jo-Ann Stores, Inc., filed on 15 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 28 November 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 6:23-cv-00601?

US9940124B2 (“Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine”), assigned to S3G TECHNOLOGY LLC, currently active; US8572571B2 (“Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine”), assigned to S3G TECHNOLOGY LLC, currently active; US10261774B2 (“Modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine”), assigned to S3G TECHNOLOGY LLC. The record also lists Jo-Ann Stores mobile applications for running the Android operating system and Jo-Ann Stores mobile applications for iOS2 (Defendant app) and its systems, methods, computing devices, including servers, software, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium that execute, run, store, support or facilitate the use of the Defendant app.

How was case 6:23-cv-00601 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff S3G Technology LLC, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), hereby dismisses all claims between Plaintiff and Defendant Jo-Ann Stores, LLC WITH PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”

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-00601 take?

105 calendar days, from filing on 15 Aug 2023 to closure on 28 November 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00601?

Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Charles L. Ainsworth is recorded as counsel for plaintiff S3G Technology.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:23-cv-00601 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00601 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.