Silent Communications, LLC v. Tencent Holdings Limited
Infringement action filed 8 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 10 Apr 2023, with US8792874B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8792874B2
- Application no.
- US13/897468
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-01272
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 8 Dec 2022 – 10 Apr 2023
- Duration
- 123 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Systems, methods, circuits and associated software for augmenting contact details stored on a communication device with data relating to the contact contained on social networking sites
- 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
Systems, methods, circuits and associated software for augmenting contact details stored on a communication device with data relating to the contact contained on social networking sites
Disclosed are methods, circuits, systems and applications for providing messaging services which may provide for download, synchronization, voicemail-message to text-message translation, direct access and handling of selected voicemail messages through a user’s user interface. Further disclosed are systems, methods, circuits and associated software for retrieving data associated with contacts stored on a communication device from social networking sites and integrating the retrieved data into the operation of the communication device.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 29 Jul 2014
- Earliest priority
- 11 May 2009
- Est. expiry
- 11 May 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BLUVBAND, MAX EITAN · HAJDU, SHAHAR
- Classification
- H04L12/58H04W4/16H04M3/533H04M3/00H04M1/72403
- Prosecution counsel
- Ascenda Law Group, PC
- Examiner
- MATHARU, MANPREET
Parties of record
Silent Communications, LLC
- Core tech
- H04L12/58H04W4/16H04M3/533H04M3/00
- Counsel
- Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak · William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Ramey LLP
Tencent Holdings Limited
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak | Silent Communications, LLC | Plaintiff |
| William P. Ramey III | Silent Communications, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii), the Plaintiff, Silent Communications, LLC hereby files this notice of dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims. The Plaintiff stipulates and agree that 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. Dated: April 10, 2023”
Case 6:22-cv-01272 · W.D. Tex. · closed 10 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 6:22-cv-01272?
6:22-cv-01272 is a patent infringement action brought by Silent Communications, LLC against Tencent Holdings Limited, filed on 8 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 10 April 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:22-cv-01272?
US8792874B2 (“Systems, methods, circuits and associated software for augmenting contact details stored on a communication device with data relating to the contact contained on social networking sites”), assigned to SILENT COMMUNICATION LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Systems, methods, circuits and associated software for augmenting contact details stored on a communication device with data relating to the contact contained on social networking sites.
How was case 6:22-cv-01272 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(ii), the Plaintiff, Silent Communications, LLC hereby files this notice of dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims. The Plaintiff stipulates and agree that 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. Dated: April 10, 2023”
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 6:22-cv-01272 take?
123 calendar days, from filing on 8 Dec 2022 to closure on 10 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-01272?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Silent Communications.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-01272 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.