Infringement action filed 21 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California and closed 6 Oct 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
The synchronization of data segments is particularly necessary for the use of small screens. A method and a device are disclosed for synchronizing content-dependent first data segments of a first data file and content-dependent second data segments of a second data file, the first and second data segments being respectively output in sequence according to their chronological order in such a way that based on a predeterminable assignment rule for the first and second data segments, each second data segment is output together with a corresponding first data segment.
A portable terminal has a body including a transparent window integrally formed therein, a display disposed beneath the body and visible through the transparent window, and a touch screen located between the display and the body, the touch screen permitting signal input in a capacitive manner.
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
"IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED TO by and between Plaintiffs VideoLabs, Inc. (“VL”) and VL Collective IP LLC (“VL IP”) (collectively “VideoLabs” or “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”), through their undersigned counsel, that all claims for relief asserted against Apple by VideoLabs herein are dismissed, with prejudice; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses shall be borne by each party incurring the same."
Case 3:23-cv-01307 · E.D. Cal. · closed 6 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.
3:23-cv-01307 is a patent infringement action brought by VideoLabs, Inc. against Apple, Inc., filed on 21 Mar 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The case closed on 6 October 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 3:23-cv-01307?
US8605794B2 (“Method for synchronizing content-dependent data segments of files”), assigned to VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, currently active; US7525535B2 (“Portable terminal”), assigned to HIGHBRIDGE PRINCIPAL STRATEGIES, LLC, AS COLLATERAL AGENT, currently active. The record also lists Method for synchronizing content-dependent data segments of files and Portable terminal.
How was case 3:23-cv-01307 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: "IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED TO by and between Plaintiffs VideoLabs, Inc. (“VL”) and VL Collective IP LLC (“VL IP”) (collectively “VideoLabs” or “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”), through their undersigned counsel, that all claims for relief asserted against Apple by VideoLabs herein are dismissed, with prejudice; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses shall be borne by each party incurring the same."
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 3:23-cv-01307 take?
199 calendar days, from filing on 21 Mar 2023 to closure on 6 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:23-cv-01307?
Chief Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin presided. Christine E. Lehman, Courtland Lewis Reichman, Jaime F. Cardenas-Navia and Jennifer Prieb Estremera are recorded as counsel for plaintiff VideoLabs. Ankur Vijay Desai, Claire E. Schuster, Erin Paige Gibson, Jessica Lea Hannah, Nandan Raghunath Padmanabhan, Robert Buergi and Robert Chen Williams appear for defendant Apple.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 3:23-cv-01307 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:23-cv-01307 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.
