Tamabo, Inc. et al. v. Mass General Brigham, Inc. et al.
Infringement action filed 12 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and closed 16 Nov 2023, with US6599130B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6599130B2
- Application no.
- US09/775463
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-10079
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Mass.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Massachusetts
- Chief judge
- Leo T. Sorokin
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 12 Jan 2023 – 16 Nov 2023
- Duration
- 308 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Iterative video teaching aid with recordable commentary and indexing
- 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
Iterative video teaching aid with recordable commentary and indexing
A tutorial or diagnostic aid based on the representation and iterative interpretation of visual images is taught. A teaching or diagnostic session is created by overlaying an interpretation layer via a software application onto the visual image layer and synchronizing the two with the time code of the visual image. The interpretation layer allows the reviewer to identify image areas of interest by gesture and append comments thereto in real time; i.e. images or portions of images within the visual representation playback may be identified and labeled and have the concurrent commentary associated therewith. The comments are indexed and linked to a database of similar topics. The flow of the session is recorded to show the images, deictic gestures associated therewith, and commentary associated with the gestures, to enable subsequent users to playback a session and follow the flow of thought (i.e. image identification and commentary within the original session). Iterative sessions allow additional image identification and commentary to be accomplished. Additional database access through the index may further enhance a teaching session, or provide for research sessions and report generation.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 29 Jul 2003
- Est. expiry
- 10 Jun 2021
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MOEHRLE, ARMIN
- Classification
- G09B23/28G09B23/00
- Prosecution counsel
- PAULEY ERICKSON & SWANSON
- Examiner
- CHENG, JOE H.
Parties of record
Tamabo, Inc.
- Core tech
- G09B23/28G09B23/00
- Counsel
- Johanna Hendriksen · Joseph J. Zito · Raymond P. Ausrotas · William F. McGonigle III
- Firm
- Arrowood LLP, Devlin Law Firm LLC, Dnl Zito Castellano
- Also named
- 511 Technologies, Inc.
Mass General Brigham, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Michael T. Piery · Nolan Mitchell
- Firm
- Quarles & Brady LLP
- Also named
- Precision Imaging Metrics, LLC · Tumor Imaging Metrics Core · Yuni, Inc. · General Hospital Corporation
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Johanna Hendriksen | Tamabo, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Joseph J. Zito | Tamabo, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Raymond P. Ausrotas | Tamabo, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| William F. McGonigle III | Tamabo, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Michael T. Piery | Mass General Brigham, Inc. | Defendant |
| Nolan Mitchell | Mass General Brigham, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiffs, Tamabo, Inc. and 511 Technologies, Inc., and Defendants, Mass General Brigham Incorporated, General Hospital Corporation d/b/a Massachusetts General Hospital, Tumor Imaging Metrics Core, Precisions Imaging Metrics, LLC, and Yunu, Inc., by their attorneys, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(a)(ii), hereby stipulate to the dismissal of the above captioned case with prejudice. Each party will bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 1:23-cv-10079 · D. Mass. · closed 16 November 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 1:23-cv-10079?
1:23-cv-10079 is a patent infringement action brought by Tamabo, Inc. against Mass General Brigham, Inc., filed on 12 Jan 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case closed on 16 November 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-10079?
US6599130B2 (“Iterative video teaching aid with recordable commentary and indexing”), assigned to TAMABO INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Iterative video teaching aid with recordable commentary and indexing.
How was case 1:23-cv-10079 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Plaintiffs, Tamabo, Inc. and 511 Technologies, Inc., and Defendants, Mass General Brigham Incorporated, General Hospital Corporation d/b/a Massachusetts General Hospital, Tumor Imaging Metrics Core, Precisions Imaging Metrics, LLC, and Yunu, Inc., by their attorneys, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(a)(ii), hereby stipulate to the dismissal of the above captioned case with prejudice. Each party will bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ 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 1:23-cv-10079 take?
308 calendar days, from filing on 12 Jan 2023 to closure on 16 November 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-10079?
Chief Judge Leo T. Sorokin presided. Johanna Hendriksen, Joseph J. Zito, Raymond P. Ausrotas and William F. McGonigle III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Tamabo. Michael T. Piery and Nolan Mitchell appear for defendant Mass General Brigham.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-10079 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.