Book a demo

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

Try now
ScanComm v. Paypal | Patent Lawsuit 6:23-cv-00009

ScanComm, LLC v. Paypal, Inc.

6:23-cv-00009 W.D. Tex. Closed US11003878B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 7 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 21 Apr 2023, with US11003878B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US11003878B2
Application no.
US16/803112
Case no.
6:23-cv-00009
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Xavier Rodriguez
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
7 Jan 2023 – 21 Apr 2023
Duration
104 days
Basis of termination
Case Dismissed
Products & marks
System for communication from a user to the publisher of a scannable label
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:23-cv-00009, 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
US11003878B2 Active App. US16/803112

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.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
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
Classification
G06K7/10G06K7/14G06K19/06G06Q10/10G06Q30/00G06Q30/01
Prosecution counsel
Cole Schotz, P.C.
Examiner
LE, THIEN M
US11003878B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US11003878B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
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
Cortney AlexanderScanComm, 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

“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 6:23-cv-00009 · W.D. Tex. · closed 21 April 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-00009?

6:23-cv-00009 is a patent infringement action brought by ScanComm, LLC against Paypal, Inc., filed on 7 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 21 April 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00009?

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 6:23-cv-00009 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. 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 6:23-cv-00009 take?

104 calendar days, from filing on 7 Jan 2023 to closure on 21 April 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00009?

Chief Judge Xavier Rodriguez presided. Cortney Alexander is recorded as counsel for plaintiff ScanComm.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:23-cv-00009 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00009 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.