Infringement action filed 16 Jun 2020 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 28 Apr 2023, with US9965780B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Methods and systems for content aggregation and distribution are described. Video content may be received from a plurality of sources. The video content may be associated with metadata identifying items included within the video content. A video player may be provided which enables video content to be displayed on a user terminal, and a control may be provided enabling the user to quickly navigate to specific portions of the video content. A viewer of the video content may, in turn, author and provide additional video content. The video player may be embeddable.
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
"Before the Court is Plaintiff Scorpcast, LLC dba HaulStars’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Review (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 15). On April 4, 2023, the Court issued an Order instructing Plaintiff to show cause within 10 days of the Order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 14). The Motion was Plaintiff’s apparent response to the Order to Show Cause. Instead of addressing why Plaintiff has failed to move for entry of a default judgment against Defendant Hot G Vibe, Plaintiff simply moved to stay the case on the ground that this Court stayed litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,965,780, (“the ’780 patent”), which is also asserted in this case, pending the completion of IPR proceedings related to the ’780 Patent.1 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion fails to explain the significant delay in Plaintiff’s prosecution of this matter and, therefore, fails to respond meaningfully to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion should be and is DENIED. The Court further DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution."
Case 2:20-cv-00197 · E.D. Tex. · closed 28 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.
2:20-cv-00197 is a patent infringement action brought by ScorpCast, LLC against Hot G Vibe, filed on 16 Jun 2020 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 28 April 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:20-cv-00197?
US9965780B2 (“System and methods for providing user generated video reviews”), assigned to SCORPCAST, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists System and methods for providing user generated video reviews.
How was case 2:20-cv-00197 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: "Before the Court is Plaintiff Scorpcast, LLC dba HaulStars’ (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Review (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 15). On April 4, 2023, the Court issued an Order instructing Plaintiff to show cause within 10 days of the Order why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Dkt. No. 14). The Motion was Plaintiff’s apparent response to the Order to Show Cause. Instead of addressing why Plaintiff has failed to move for entry of a default judgment against Defendant Hot G Vibe, Plaintiff simply moved to stay the case on the ground that this
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 2:20-cv-00197 take?
1046 calendar days, from filing on 16 Jun 2020 to closure on 28 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:20-cv-00197?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Chad Phillip Ennis, Fred Irvin Williams, John Wittenzellner, Jonathan Lloyd Hardt, Michael Simons and Todd Eric Landis are recorded as counsel for plaintiff ScorpCast.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:20-cv-00197 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:20-cv-00197 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.