Wave Linx v. Convoso: Consent Judgment After 106-Day Patent Dispute
Wave Linx LLC filed suit against cloud contact-centre provider Convoso Inc. in the Central District of California, asserting US8843549B2 covering real-time streaming of telephone system notifications to internet terminal devices. The case resolved by consent judgment just 106 days after filing, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs.
Telephone notification streaming patent resolved in under four months
On 22 November 2022, Wave Linx LLC filed a patent infringement action against Convoso Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:22-cv-08555). The asserted patent, US8843549B2, covers a streaming method for transmitting telephone system notifications to internet terminal devices in real time — technology directly relevant to cloud-based contact-centre and outbound calling platforms of the kind Convoso operates.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order, filed 8 March 2023 as Document 22, is a joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), under which the parties jointly agreed to dismiss all claims against Convoso with prejudice and all counterclaims against Wave Linx without prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs. The specific substantive terms underlying the agreed resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
The 106-day timeline from filing to resolution suggests the parties reached agreement before significant merits litigation — no Markman hearing or substantive motion practice appears to have been completed. What drove the early resolution, and whether any commercial arrangement was reached between the parties, is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 106 days
106 days — resolved well below the median district court patent case timeline
US8843549B2 — Real-time telephone system notification streaming
If your organisation develops, sells, or integrates cloud contact-centre software, outbound dialling platforms, VoIP notification systems, or any product that streams telephone system events to internet-connected terminals in real time, US8843549B2 is directly relevant to your freedom-to-operate position. The Wave Linx enforcement action against Convoso demonstrates that this patent is being actively asserted against commercial platform operators in this space.
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation of dismissal, entered by the Central District of California on 8 March 2023, terminates the infringement action on agreed terms. The asymmetric prejudice structure — plaintiff's claims dismissed with prejudice, defendant's counterclaims without prejudice — is a distinctive feature that limits Wave Linx's ability to re-assert these specific allegations against Convoso while preserving Convoso's counterclaim options.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
What a consent judgment means in patent litigation
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment on terms agreed by the parties, ending the litigation with the same legal finality as a contested judgment. It is distinct from a bare settlement agreement: the court enters it as a formal judgment, making it enforceable as such. Here, the underlying stipulation was filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment; the specific agreed terms are not disclosed in the available public record.
Binding court-entered judgmentWave Linx exits with claims dismissed with prejudice
Wave Linx's infringement claims against Convoso were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Wave Linx cannot re-file the same claims against Convoso on the basis of US8843549B2 in respect of the same accused conduct. The patent itself remains in force and Wave Linx retains enforcement rights against other parties. Whether any commercial arrangement was reached as part of the consent judgment is not disclosed in the available record.
Claims dismissed with prejudiceConvoso's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice
All counterclaims asserted by Convoso against Wave Linx were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Convoso's ability to reassert those claims in future proceedings should circumstances warrant. Convoso bears its own attorneys' fees and costs with no cost award in its favour. The early resolution — before substantive merits litigation — suggests Convoso avoided prolonged litigation exposure, though the precise basis for agreement is not publicly available.
Counterclaims dismissed w/o prejudiceUS8843549B2 remains a live enforcement risk for contact-centre platforms
The consent judgment resolves only the dispute between Wave Linx and Convoso. US8843549B2, covering real-time streaming of telephone system notifications to internet terminals, remains enforceable. Other cloud contact-centre, VoIP notification, and outbound dialling platform providers operating in this technical space should assess their exposure to this patent. The rapid resolution may signal continued enforcement activity by Wave Linx in this technology domain.
Patent remains active — sector riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Wave Linx, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8843549B2 covering real-time telephone notification streamingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Convoso, Inc. | Company | Convoso Inc. — cloud-based contact-centre and outbound call management platform providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew S. Curfman | Attorney | Counsel for Wave Linx, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Karthik Krishna Murthy | Attorney | Counsel for Wave Linx, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Murthy IP Inc. | Law Firm | Representing Wave Linx, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sand, Sebolt & Wernow Co., LPA | Law Firm | Representing Wave Linx, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Richard Headley | Attorney | Counsel for Convoso, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Convoso, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in real-time telephony notification and VoIP streaming
Forward-looking patent and technology intelligence for cloud contact-centre, VoIP, and internet telephony platform teams — derived from the Wave Linx v. Convoso dispute.
Wave Linx's telephony streaming portfolio — what else is filed?
US8843549B2 may be one of several assets in Wave Linx's or related entities' portfolios covering telephone notification streaming and VoIP-to-internet bridging. Mapping the full assignee portfolio — including continuation applications filed from the same priority chain — reveals the true scope of enforcement risk for contact-centre platform operators and identifies which claim families are still pending or recently issued.
Assignee portfolio mappingFiling trends in real-time telephony notification to internet terminals
The technical domain of streaming telephone system events and notifications to internet-connected terminal devices has seen sustained innovation from contact-centre platform vendors, cloud PBX providers, and CPaaS companies. Mapping filing trends in this space — particularly claims covering real-time event bridging between PSTN and web endpoints — reveals which players are staking ground and where whitespace remains for non-infringing design approaches.
VoIP notification filing trendsConvoso's patent filing activity in outbound contact-centre technology
As a cloud-based outbound contact-centre platform, Convoso's own patent filing activity — or relative absence thereof — in telephony notification streaming and call management signals its IP defensive posture. Understanding whether Convoso has built a patent portfolio in adjacent spaces helps assess its leverage in future disputes and the competitive IP dynamics among outbound dialling platform providers.
Convoso IP competitive postureAdjacent innovation opportunities beyond US8843549B2's claim scope
The specific claim boundaries of US8843549B2 — focused on streaming telephone system notifications to internet terminals in real time — leave adjacent technical approaches potentially unencumbered. Architectures involving AI-driven notification routing, edge-computing telephony event processing, or WebRTC-native notification delivery may represent whitespace where R&D investment can proceed with lower infringement risk. A targeted landscape search quantifies that space.
Design-around whitespaceSimilar patent cases in VoIP and real-time telephony notification
Cases involving real-time telephony notification and streaming patents in the Central District of California and related courts — relevant to cloud contact-centre and VoIP platform operators.
What this case signals for the cloud contact-centre IP landscape
A sub-4-month consent judgment in a telephone notification streaming patent case carries clear signals for VoIP and contact-centre platform operators.
Early resolution signals enforcement intent — not a one-off action
A consent judgment reached before any substantive merits litigation is consistent with a focused enforcement strategy targeting specific platforms. Contact-centre and outbound dialling software providers should treat this case as a signal to audit their real-time notification and telephony-streaming architectures against US8843549B2 before receiving a demand letter.
Claims dismissed with prejudice narrows future Wave Linx–Convoso disputes
The with-prejudice dismissal of Wave Linx's claims forecloses re-litigation of the same infringement allegations against Convoso on this patent. However, Convoso's without-prejudice counterclaims remain available to be reasserted, preserving optionality for Convoso if the parties' relationship changes or new disputes arise.
Wave v Convoso — key questions answered
The case was resolved by consent judgment. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order is a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissing Wave Linx's claims against Convoso with prejudice and Convoso's counterclaims against Wave Linx without prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs. The specific substantive terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Wave Linx asserted US8843549B2, which covers a streaming method for transmitting telephone system notifications to internet terminal devices in real time. The application number recorded in the case data is US10/396698. The patent is relevant to cloud contact-centre, outbound dialling, and VoIP notification platforms that deliver telephony events to internet-connected endpoints.
The joint stipulation of dismissal provided for asymmetric prejudice treatment: Wave Linx's infringement claims against Convoso were dismissed with prejudice — barring Wave Linx from re-asserting those specific claims against Convoso on this patent — while Convoso's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Convoso's right to reassert them in future proceedings. The reasons for this asymmetric structure are not disclosed in the public record.
The case was filed on 22 November 2022 and closed on 8 March 2023 — a duration of 106 days. This timeline is consistent with resolution before substantive merits litigation such as a Markman claim construction hearing or significant motion practice. What specifically drove the early resolution is not disclosed in the public record.
No. The consent judgment resolves only the dispute between Wave Linx LLC and Convoso Inc. US8843549B2 remains in force, and Wave Linx retains the right to assert it against other parties. Cloud contact-centre, VoIP notification, and outbound dialling platform operators should assess their own exposure to this patent independently of the Convoso resolution.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.