Infringement action filed 21 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 27 Oct 2023, with US8855723B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
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.
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
"The Parties hereby stipulate to the dismissal of all claims with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(a)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties agree that each party will bear its own costs and attorney fees"
Case 6:23-cv-00528 · W.D. Tex. · closed 27 October 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.
6:23-cv-00528 is a patent infringement action brought by Stasit, LLC against Meta Platforms, Inc., filed on 21 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 27 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00528?
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-00528 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: "The Parties hereby stipulate to the dismissal of all claims with prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(a)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The parties agree that each party will bear its own costs and attorney 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-00528 take?
98 calendar days, from filing on 21 Jul 2023 to closure on 27 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00528?
Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia presided. Joseph J. Zito and William P. Ramey III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Stasit. Lisa K. Nguyen appears for defendant Meta Platforms.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:23-cv-00528 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00528 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.
