Infringement action filed 2 Oct 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 19 Oct 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
A method for referencing a message comprises the steps of receiving selection of an area or object associated with the message on a display, optionally providing an indication that the selection of the area or object has been received, allowing a further message to be formed with a link to the message, wherein the link is associated with the further message responsive to the selection, and causing display of the information associated with the message responsive to selection of a further area or portion.
A method for referencing a message comprises the steps of receiving selection of an area or object associated with the message on a display, optionally providing an indication that the selection of the area or object has been received, allowing a further message to be formed with a link to the message, wherein the link is associated with the further message responsive to the selection, and causing display of the information associated with the message responsive to selection of a further area or portion.
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
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, I deny Plaintiff's motion to dismiss (D.I. 39) and grant Defendants' motion to dismiss (D.I. 42). Plaintiffs Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice with respect to all claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 9,860,198 and 10,728,192. IT IS SO ORDERED."
Case 1:20-cv-01345 · D. Del. · closed 19 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.
1:20-cv-01345 is a patent infringement action brought by Wrinkl, Inc. against Meta Platforms, Inc., filed on 2 Oct 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 19 October 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:20-cv-01345?
US9860198B1 (“Apparatus and method for message reference management”), assigned to WRINKL, INC., currently active; US10728192B2 (“Apparatus and method for message reference management”), assigned to WRINKL, INC., currently active. The record also lists Facebook Messenger, Facebook Workplace Chat, Instagram apps and WhatsApp Messenger.
How was case 1:20-cv-01345 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, I deny Plaintiff's motion to dismiss (D.I. 39) and grant Defendants' motion to dismiss (D.I. 42). Plaintiffs Complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice with respect to all claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 9,860,198 and 10,728,192. IT IS SO ORDERED."
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 1:20-cv-01345 take?
1112 calendar days, from filing on 2 Oct 2020 to closure on 19 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:20-cv-01345?
Chief Judge Richard G. Andrews presided. Adam J. Kessel, Frank E. Scherkenbach, Kayleigh E. McGlynn, Kelly A. Del Dotto, Lawrence K. Kolodney, Nitika Gupta Fiorella and Steven R. Katz are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Wrinkl. Alan M. Billharz, Fan Zhang, Jennifer Ying, Karen Jacobs and Richard G. Frenkel appear for defendant Meta Platforms.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:20-cv-01345 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:20-cv-01345 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.
