Book a demo

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

Try now
SynchroFi v. Namecheap | Patent Lawsuit 1:26-cv-00283

SynchroFi LLC v. Namecheap, Inc.

1:26-cv-00283 D. Del. Closed US7613919B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 16 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 6 May 2026, with US7613919B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7613919B2
Application no.
US10/963334
Case no.
1:26-cv-00283
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
16 Mar 2026 – 6 May 2026
Duration
51 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Single-use password authentication
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:26-cv-00283, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. 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
US7613919B2 Active App. US10/963334

Single-use password authentication

Systems, computer program products and methods for authentication using a one-time password. In system that includes a client, a service provider, and an authentication service, the authentication service generates an authentication service identifier for the client. Any suitable identifier may be used for the authentication service identifier, which generally takes the form of an arbitrary number of characters. From the client, the authentication service receives a client moniker (e.g., a username) for the client to use when accessing the authentication service. The authentication service sends a one-time password to the client for the client to use in accessing the service provider. When the authentication service receives a one-time password from the service provider, the authentication service sends the authentication service identifier for the client to the service provider to authenticate the client if the one-time password received from the service provider matches the one-time password sent to the client.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
3 Nov 2009
Est. expiry
28 Nov 2026
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04L9/00H04L9/32G06F15/16G06F7/58H04K1/00
Prosecution counsel
Workman Nydegger
Examiner
BARRON, JR., GILBERTO
US7613919B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7613919B2 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

“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff SynchroFi LLC pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby dismisses with prejudice all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant Namecheap, Inc. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No party has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action.”

Case 1:26-cv-00283 · D. Del. · closed 6 May 2026
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 1:26-cv-00283?

1:26-cv-00283 is a patent infringement action brought by SynchroFi LLC against Namecheap, Inc., filed on 16 Mar 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 6 May 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 1:26-cv-00283?

US7613919B2 (“Single-use password authentication”), assigned to SYNCHROFI LLC, currently active. The record also lists Single-use password authentication.

How was case 1:26-cv-00283 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff SynchroFi LLC pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby dismisses with prejudice all claims by Plaintiff against Defendant Namecheap, Inc. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No party has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this action.”

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 1:26-cv-00283 take?

51 calendar days, from filing on 16 Mar 2026 to closure on 6 May 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:26-cv-00283?

Chief Judge Gregory B. Williams presided. Brian E. Lutness is recorded as counsel for plaintiff SynchroFi. Bindu Ann George Palapura appears for defendant Namecheap.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:26-cv-00283 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:26-cv-00283 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.