Book a demo

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

Try now
Televo v. Kyocera | Patent Lawsuit 2:25-cv-00721

Televo LLC v. Kyocera, Corp.

2:25-cv-00721 E.D. Tex. Closed US8521927B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 16 Jul 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 20 Mar 2026, with US8521927B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8521927B2
Application no.
US11/774578
Case no.
2:25-cv-00721
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
16 Jul 2025 – 20 Mar 2026
Duration
247 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed without Prejudice
Products & marks
System and method for text entry
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:25-cv-00721, United States District Court for the Eastern 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
US8521927B2 Active App. US11/774578

System and method for text entry

A text entry system for an electronic device comprising:

    • an input subsystem receives user input operations, interprets them as letters, characters, symbols, commands or functions, where the said received user operations interpreted as letters are comprising:
      • (1) single letter operations that select any possible letter from the alphabet,
      • (2) letter group operations that select a group of possible letters from the alphabet; and
    • a text prediction subsystem receives a sequence of the said single letter entries and letter group entries, and produces a list of possible words the user intends to enter based on a priori database of words; and
    • a word processing subsystem, receives the said list of possible words, displays them to the user, receives the user selection of the desired word and further processes the text entry as required.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
27 Aug 2013
Est. expiry
17 Mar 2028
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F13/12G06F13/38
Examiner
TSAI, HENRY
US8521927B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8521927B2 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

AttorneyForRole
Isaac Phillip RabicoffTelevo LLCPlaintiff
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 Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Plaintiff Televo LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 16.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned case is voluntarily dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Id. at 1.) In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

Case 2:25-cv-00721 · E.D. Tex. · closed 20 March 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 2:25-cv-00721?

2:25-cv-00721 is a patent infringement action brought by Televo LLC against Kyocera, Corp., filed on 16 Jul 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 20 March 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 2:25-cv-00721?

US8521927B2 (“System and method for text entry”), assigned to TELEVO LLC, currently active. The record also lists System and method for text entry.

How was case 2:25-cv-00721 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Plaintiff Televo LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 16.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned case is voluntarily dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Id. at 1.) In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”

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 2:25-cv-00721 take?

247 calendar days, from filing on 16 Jul 2025 to closure on 20 March 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-00721?

Isaac Phillip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Televo.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:25-cv-00721 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-00721 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.