Wave Linx, LLC v. Convoso, Inc.
Infringement action filed 22 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 8 Mar 2023, with US8843549B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8843549B2
- Application no.
- US10/396698
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-08555
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- C.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 22 Nov 2022 – 8 Mar 2023
- Duration
- 106 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Streaming method for transmitting telephone system notifications to internet terminal devices in real time
- 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
Streaming method for transmitting telephone system notifications to internet terminal devices in real time
In the course of an application involving real-time notification of a client by a telephone switching system, a connection between the client and a server is opened. Notification messages transmitted from the telephone switching system to the server are adjusted and sent to the client in the format of a programming language code executable by the client’s browser. The programming language codes are subsequently executed by the browser, whereby the respective notification messages are displayed at the client. For transmission of the notification messages from the server to the browser, as streaming method such as HTTP streaming is use so that the connection remains open while notification messages are to be sent. The presented method can be based on standardized protocols, entails little protocol overhead and allows for facile treatment of security issues.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 23 Sep 2014
- Earliest priority
- 27 Mar 2002
- Est. expiry
- 15 Jul 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- AUFFRET, JEAN-MARC · JESTIN, JEAN-FRANCOIS · MARJOU, XAVIER
- Classification
- G06F15/16H04L12/66H04L12/18H04L12/54H04L12/58H04L29/06H04M3/42H04M3/56H04M7/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC
- Examiner
- LAZARO, DAVID
Parties of record
Wave Linx, LLC
- Core tech
- G06F15/16H04L12/66H04L12/18H04L12/54
- Counsel
- Andrew S. Curfman · Karthik Krishna Murthy
- Firm
- Murthy IP Inc., Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA
Convoso, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Michael Richard Headley
- Firm
- Fish & Richardson LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew S. Curfman | Wave Linx, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Karthik Krishna Murthy | Wave Linx, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Michael Richard Headley | Convoso, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff Wave Linx LLC and Defendant Convoso, Inc., by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and hereby jointly stipulate and agree to dismiss all claims against Defendant Convoso, Inc. WITH Case 2:22-cv-08555-AB-MRW Document 22 Filed 03/08/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:131 JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSALPREJUDICE and all counterclaims against Plaintiff Wave Linx LLC WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Case 2:22-cv-08555 · C.D. Cal. · closed 8 March 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 2:22-cv-08555?
2:22-cv-08555 is a patent infringement action brought by Wave Linx, LLC against Convoso, Inc., filed on 22 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 8 March 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:22-cv-08555?
US8843549B2 (“Streaming method for transmitting telephone system notifications to internet terminal devices in real time”), assigned to WAVE LINX LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Streaming method for transmitting telephone system notifications to internet terminal devices in real time.
How was case 2:22-cv-08555 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Wave Linx LLC and Defendant Convoso, Inc., by and through their undersigned counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and hereby jointly stipulate and agree to dismiss all claims against Defendant Convoso, Inc. WITH Case 2:22-cv-08555-AB-MRW Document 22 Filed 03/08/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:131 JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSALPREJUDICE and all counterclaims against Plaintiff Wave Linx LLC WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.”
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 2:22-cv-08555 take?
106 calendar days, from filing on 22 Nov 2022 to closure on 8 March 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-08555?
Andrew S. Curfman and Karthik Krishna Murthy are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Wave Linx. Michael Richard Headley appears for defendant Convoso.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-08555 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.