Infringement action filed 30 Jun 2016 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 12 Jul 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
There is provided an instant voice messaging system (and method) for delivering instant messages over a packet-switched network, the system comprising: a client connected to the network, the client selecting one or more recipients, generating an instant voice message therefor, and transmitting the selected recipients and the instant voice message therefor over the network; and a server connected to the network, the server receiving the selected recipients and the instant voice message therefor, and delivering the instant voice message to the selected recipients over the network, the selected recipients being enabled to audibly play the instant voice message.
5 on recordIPR2017-02085 · filed by Google Inc.IPR2017-01257 · filed by Facebook Inc.90014796 · EPR · filed by Facebook, Inv.IPR2017-01799 · filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.IPR2018-00748 · Other · filed by Facebook, Inc.
Methods, systems and programs for instant voice messaging over a packet-switched network are provided. A method for instant voice messaging may comprise receiving an instant voice message having one or more recipients, delivering the instant voice message to the one or more recipients over a packet-switched network, temporarily storing the instant voice message if a recipient is unavailable; and delivering the stored instant voice message to the recipient once the recipient becomes available.
17 on recordIPR2017-00224 · filed by Apple Inc.IPR2017-01668 · Other · filed by Facebook, Inc.IPR2017-01667 · Other · filed by Facebook, Inc.IPR2018-00580 · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2017-01805 · Other · filed by Apple, Inc.IPR2017-02080 · filed by Google Inc.IPR2017-01797 · Other · filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.IPR2019-01559 · Other · filed by MICROSOFT CORPORATIONIPR2019-01558 · filed by MICROSOFT CORPORATION90014718 · EPR · filed by Andrew M Mason2023-003246 · Patentability · filed by Uniloc 2017 LLCIPR2017-00223 · filed by Apple Inc.IPR2018-00579 · Other · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2017-02081 · Other · filed by Google Inc.IPR2017-01798 · Other · filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.IPR2017-01804 · filed by Apple, Inc.IPR2017-02090 · filed by Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
The docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
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 Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Stipulation”) filed by Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (together, “Uniloc”) and Defendant Snap Inc. (“Snap”). (Dkt. No. 204.) In the Stipulation, Uniloc and Snap jointly stipulate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss all claims in this matter between them with prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLDEGES that all claims and counterclaims asserted between Uniloc and Snap in the above-captioned member case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. All other requests for relief between Uniloc and Snap in the aforementioned case are DENIED AS MOOT."
Case 2:16-cv-00696 · E.D. Tex. · closed 12 July 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.
2:16-cv-00696 is a patent infringement action brought by Uniloc, Corp. against Snap, Inc., filed on 30 Jun 2016 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 12 July 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:16-cv-00696?
US8199747B2 (“System and method for instant VoIP messaging”), assigned to UNILOC 2017 LLC, currently inactive; US8724622B2 (“System and method for instant VoIP messaging”), assigned to UNILOC 2017 LLC, currently inactive; US8995433B2 (“System and method for instant VoIP messaging”), assigned to UNILOC 2017 LLC; US7535890B2 (“System and method for instant VoIP messaging”), assigned to UNILOC 2017 LLC. The record also lists System and method for instant VoIP messaging.
How was case 2:16-cv-00696 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: "Before the Court is the Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Stipulation”) filed by Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg, S.A. (together, “Uniloc”) and Defendant Snap Inc. (“Snap”). (Dkt. No. 204.) In the Stipulation, Uniloc and Snap jointly stipulate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss all claims in this matter between them with prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLDEGES that all claims and counterclaims asserted between Uniloc and Snap in the above-captioned member case are DISMISS
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 2:16-cv-00696 take?
2568 calendar days, from filing on 30 Jun 2016 to closure on 12 July 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:16-cv-00696?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Brett Aaron Mangrum, James L. Etheridge, Ryan Scott Loveless, Travis Lee Richins and Uniloc USA, Inc. are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Uniloc. Deron R. Dacus, Matthew E. Buccellato, Peter Aaron Kerr and Reuben Chen appear for defendant Snap.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:16-cv-00696 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:16-cv-00696 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.
