ScanComm, LLC v. LinkedIn, Corp.
Infringement action filed 29 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and closed 23 Oct 2023, with US11003878B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US11003878B2
- Application no.
- US16/803112
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-03856
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Ga.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Georgia
- Chief judge
- Steve C. Jones
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 29 Aug 2023 – 23 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 55 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- System for communication from a user to the publisher of a scannable label
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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
System for communication from a user to the publisher of a scannable label
“Publishers” generate individual QR codes which may be either displayed on a smartphone or printed on a physical label, and “consumers” scan and decode those codes for secure and private communication with the publishers, without either party knowing the phone number or email address of the other party. At least one profile associated with the publisher may be an anonymous profile that permits the disclosure of only a specified subset of the otherwise available information about that publisher, and that information is not directly embodied in the displayed code, but rather is stored on a secure remote server which is selectively accessible by the consumer. If both parties have not authorized the release of their respective names and phone numbers (or other public contact information) to the other party by exchanging respective public profiles within a predetermined time period, any associated temporary contact numbers may be disabled and any anonymous contact information may be deleted from the remote server. A remote app on the publisher’s smartphone may be used to generate the QR code and upload the associated contact information and permissions to the secure server, and a local app on the consumer’s smartphone may be used to scan and process the QR code and commence secure and private communication with that publisher via the secure server.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 11 May 2021
- Earliest priority
- 23 Apr 2015
- Est. expiry
- 22 Apr 2036
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- PAPAZIAN, VATCHE
- Classification
- G06K7/10G06K7/14G06K19/06G06Q10/10G06Q30/00G06Q30/01
- Prosecution counsel
- Cole Schotz, P.C.
- Examiner
- LE, THIEN M
Parties of record
ScanComm, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Cortney Alexander
- Firm
- Kent & Risley, LLC
LinkedIn, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Cortney Alexander | ScanComm, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant having not yet filed or served upon Plaintiff either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff hereby dismisses its action against Defendant with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs and fees.”
Case 1:23-cv-03856 · N.D. Ga. · closed 23 October 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 1:23-cv-03856?
1:23-cv-03856 is a patent infringement action brought by ScanComm, LLC against LinkedIn, Corp., filed on 29 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The case closed on 23 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-03856?
US11003878B2 (“System for communication from a user to the publisher of a scannable label”), assigned to SHARETECH, LLC, currently active. The record also lists System for communication from a user to the publisher of a scannable label.
How was case 1:23-cv-03856 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant having not yet filed or served upon Plaintiff either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff hereby dismisses its action against Defendant with prejudice, with each side to bear its own costs and 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 1:23-cv-03856 take?
55 calendar days, from filing on 29 Aug 2023 to closure on 23 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-03856?
Chief Judge Steve C. Jones presided. Cortney Alexander is recorded as counsel for plaintiff ScanComm.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-03856 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.