Savannah Licensing, LLC v. CME Group, Inc.
Infringement action filed 29 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and closed 4 Apr 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US8680992B2US9454777B2
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-10130
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- S.D.N.Y.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New York
- Chief judge
- Jennifer L. Rochon
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 29 Nov 2022 – 4 Apr 2023
- Duration
- 126 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Measuring and improving the quality of a user experience · Measuring and improving the quality of a user experience upon receiving a frustration event package
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
Measuring and improving the quality of a user experience
Implementations and techniques for measuring and improving the quality of a user experience are generally disclosed.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 25 Mar 2014
- Est. expiry
- 3 Feb 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KRUGLICK, EZEKIEL
- Classification
- G08B21/00
- Prosecution counsel
- BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C.
- Examiner
- HOFSASS, JEFFERY
Measuring and improving the quality of a user experience upon receiving a frustration event package
Implementations and techniques for measuring and improving the quality of a user experience are generally disclosed.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 27 Sep 2016
- Earliest priority
- 3 Sep 2010
- Est. expiry
- 3 Feb 2031
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2022-01026 · Other · filed by Unified Patents, LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KRUGLICK, EZEKIEL
- Classification
- G08B21/00G06Q30/02G06F3/01
- Prosecution counsel
- BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C.
- Examiner
- HOFSASS, JEFFERY
Parties of record
Savannah Licensing, LLC
- Core tech
- G08B21/00G06Q30/02G06F3/01
- Counsel
- Howard L. Wernow
- Firm
- Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
CME Group, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Adam Glenn Kelly · Kathleen Gersh
- Firm
- Loeb & Loeb LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Howard L. Wernow | Savannah Licensing, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Adam Glenn Kelly | CME Group, Inc. | Defendant |
| Kathleen Gersh | CME Group, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Having considered the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal, the Court finds that Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-10130-JLR by Savannah Licensing LLC (“Savannah”) against CME Group Inc. (“CME”) should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Any and all claims by Savannah against CME are dismissed with prejudice; 2. All parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs; and 3. All other relief requested is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.”
Case 1:22-cv-10130 · S.D.N.Y. · closed 4 April 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-10130?
1:22-cv-10130 is a patent infringement action brought by Savannah Licensing, LLC against CME Group, Inc., filed on 29 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case closed on 4 April 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:22-cv-10130?
US8680992B2 (“Measuring and improving the quality of a user experience”), assigned to SAVANNAH LICENSING LLC, currently inactive; US9454777B2 (“Measuring and improving the quality of a user experience upon receiving a frustration event package”), assigned to SAVANNAH LICENSING LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Measuring and improving the quality of a user experience and Measuring and improving the quality of a user experience upon receiving a frustration event package.
How was case 1:22-cv-10130 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Having considered the parties’ Stipulation for Dismissal, the Court finds that Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-10130-JLR by Savannah Licensing LLC (“Savannah”) against CME Group Inc. (“CME”) should be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Any and all claims by Savannah against CME are dismissed with prejudice; 2. All parties shall bear their own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs; and 3. All other relief requested is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.”
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-10130 take?
126 calendar days, from filing on 29 Nov 2022 to closure on 4 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-10130?
Chief Judge Jennifer L. Rochon presided. Howard L. Wernow is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Savannah Licensing. Adam Glenn Kelly and Kathleen Gersh appear for defendant CME Group.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-10130 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.