Book a demo

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

Try now
Stasit v. HTC | Patent Lawsuit 6:23-cv-00526

Stasit, LLC v. HTC Corp.

6:23-cv-00526 W.D. Tex. Closed US8855723B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 21 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 14 Nov 2023, with US8855723B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8855723B2
Application no.
US13/244679
Case no.
6:23-cv-00526
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Orlando L. Garcia
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
21 Jul 2023 – 14 Nov 2023
Duration
116 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Temporal incoming communication notification management
Validity challenges
1 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:23-cv-00526, 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
US8855723B2 Active App. US13/244679

Temporal incoming communication notification management

Smart phone computer app. The method may include, if a number of an incoming phone call or incoming text message is not temporally allowed, not allowing for notification of the incoming phone call or incoming text according to a normal notification routine and generating a notification of the incoming call or incoming text according to a password-protected masked notification routine of the smart phone, wherein the password-protected masked notification routine of the smart phone includes adding an indication of the incoming phone call or incoming text message to a password-protected phone log or message log of the smart phone and precludes immediately displaying the incoming phone call or incoming text message information on a display of the smart phone, and further precludes adding an indication of the incoming phone call or incoming text message to a default phone log or message log of the smart phone.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
7 Oct 2014
Est. expiry
26 Apr 2032
Validity challenges
1 on record90019299 · EPR
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04M1/00
Prosecution counsel
STASIT, LLC
Examiner
EL-ZOOBI, MARIA
US8855723B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8855723B2 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

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

“Plaintiff hereby voluntarily dismisses the above action, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant has neither answered nor filed a motion for summary judgement.”

Case 6:23-cv-00526 · W.D. Tex. · closed 14 November 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-00526?

6:23-cv-00526 is a patent infringement action brought by Stasit, LLC against HTC Corp., filed on 21 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 14 November 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00526?

US8855723B2 (“Temporal incoming communication notification management”), assigned to STASIT LLC, currently active. The record also lists Temporal incoming communication notification management.

How was case 6:23-cv-00526 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff hereby voluntarily dismisses the above action, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(a)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant has neither answered nor filed a motion for summary judgement.”

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 6:23-cv-00526 take?

116 calendar days, from filing on 21 Jul 2023 to closure on 14 November 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00526?

Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia presided. Joseph J. Zito and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Stasit. Brian Craft and Eric H. Findlay appear for defendant HTC.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:23-cv-00526 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00526 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.