Infringement action filed 14 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 23 Feb 2023, with 7 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Basic input/output system read only memory image integration system and method · Electronic device disabling system and method · Electronic device security and tracking system and method · Electronic device with protection from unauthorized utilization · Providing an electronic device security and tracking system and method
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:22-cv-01310, 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.
A system and method for securing and tracking an electronic device. The system includes hardware, software and firmware components that cooperate to allow tracking, disabling, and other interaction with the stolen electronic device. The system includes an application component, non-viewable component and Basic Input/Output Subsystem (BIOS) component that are present on the electronic device. The BIOS component maintains the secured environment of the application and non-viewable components. If only the application component was provided, a simple low level format of the hard disk drive would remove the application and bypass the security features. The system implements an “application and BIOS” based solution to electronic device security.
A system and method for securing and tracking an electronic device. The system includes hardware, software and firmware components that cooperate to allow tracking, disabling, and other interaction with the stolen electronic device. The system includes an application component, non-viewable component and Basic Input/Output Subsystem (BIOS) component that are present on the electronic device. The BIOS component maintains the secured environment of the application and non-viewable components. If only the application component was provided, a simple low level format of the hard disk drive would remove the application and bypass the security features. The system implements an “application and BIOS” based solution to electronic device security.
The docket lists 7 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 5 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
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 the parties’ Stipulation of Transfer to the Eastern District of North Carolina. Noting that the Stipulation is joint but without addressing any underlying basis for the parties’ agreement, as reflected in their joint Stipulation, the Court finds that the Stipulation should be and is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Clerk of the Court shall forthwith take such steps as are needed to effectuate the transfer."
Case 1:22-cv-01310 · W.D. Tex. · closed 23 February 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.
1:22-cv-01310 is a patent infringement action brought by Softex, LLC against Lenovo (Shanghai) Electronics Technology Co., Ltd., filed on 14 Dec 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 23 February 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:22-cv-01310?
US7590837B2 (“Electronic device security and tracking system and method”), assigned to SOFTEX LLC, currently inactive; US8506649B2 (“Electronic device security and tracking system and method”), assigned to SOFTEX LLC, currently inactive; US8128710B2 (“Electronic device security system and method”), assigned to SOFTEX LLC; US8137410B2 (“Electronic device disabling system and method”), assigned to SOFTEX LLC; US8287603B2 (“Electronic device with protection from unauthorized utilization”), assigned to SOFTEX LLC; US8516235B2 (“Basic input/output system read only memory image integration system and method”), assigned to SOFTEX LLC; US8145892B2 (“Providing an electronic device security and tracking system and method”), assigned to SOFTEX LLC. The record also lists Basic input/output system read only memory image integration system and method, Electronic device disabling system and method, Electronic device security and tracking system and method, Electronic device with protection from unauthorized utilization and Providing an electronic device security and tracking system and method.
How was case 1:22-cv-01310 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: "Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation of Transfer to the Eastern District of North Carolina. Noting that the Stipulation is joint but without addressing any underlying basis for the parties’ agreement, as reflected in their joint Stipulation, the Court finds that the Stipulation should be and is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the case is transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Clerk of the Court shall forthwith take such steps as are needed to effectuate the transfer."
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 1:22-cv-01310 take?
71 calendar days, from filing on 14 Dec 2022 to closure on 23 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-01310?
Chief Judge Robert Pitman presided. Blair M. Jacobs, Casey L. Shomaker, Christina Ann Ondrick, John B. Campbell Jr. and John Stewart Holley are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Softex.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:22-cv-01310 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-01310 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.
