Infringement action filed 23 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and closed 28 Nov 2023, with US9392302B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
In a system for time-shifted viewing of television broadcasts, advertisements 41, 43 are provided with headers 50, 52 containing times of day at which that advert may be viewed or not viewed. A Personal Video Recorder (PVR) 60 stores adverts in an advertisement database 70, stores broadcast program segments in a program database 80, and broadcast rules in a rules database 90. For viewing of the program when time-shifted, the PVR checks the time of day, checks the headers of the adverts, and shows only adverts which are permissibly viewed at that time of day.
Amy K. Liang · Andrew Bledsoe · Darin W. Snyder · David S. Almeling · Luann L. Simmons · Mark A. Hayden · Michael E. Jones · Saurabh Prabhakar · Shaun William Hassett
Firm
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, McGuireWoods LLP, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Potter Minton PC
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
"Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, SafeCast Limited, hereby files this notice of dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims as Defendant has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent and each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees."
Case 5:23-cv-03128 · N.D. Cal. · 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.
5:23-cv-03128 is a patent infringement action brought by Safecast Limited against Google, LLC, filed on 23 Jun 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case closed on 28 November 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 5:23-cv-03128?
US9392302B2 (“System for providing improved facilities in time-shifted broadcasts”), assigned to SAFECAST LIMITED, currently active. The record also lists Google-owned advertising products.
How was case 5:23-cv-03128 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: "Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, SafeCast Limited, hereby files this notice of dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims as Defendant has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent and each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees."
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 5:23-cv-03128 take?
158 calendar days, from filing on 23 Jun 2023 to closure on 28 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 5:23-cv-03128?
Susan S.Q. Kalra and William Peterson Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Safecast. Amy K. Liang, Andrew Bledsoe, Darin W. Snyder, David S. Almeling, Luann L. Simmons, Mark A. Hayden, Michael E. Jones, Saurabh Prabhakar and Shaun William Hassett appear for defendant Google.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 5:23-cv-03128 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 5:23-cv-03128 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.
