Carnition, LLC v. Motion Computing, Inc.

2:15-cv-01495 E.D. Tex. Closed US7428707B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 3 Sep 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 3 Dec 2015, with US7428707B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: likely settlement.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7428707B2
Application no.
US10/698332
Case no.
2:15-cv-01495
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
3 Sep 2015 – 3 Dec 2015
Duration
91 days
Basis of termination
Likely Settlement
Products & marks
CL920 Tablet PC proposal presentation system (www.motioncomputing.com)
Validity challenges
2 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:15-cv-01495, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US7428707B2 Inactive App. US10/698332

Customizable web site access system and method therefore

ADAPTIVE AVENUE ASSOCIATES, INC.

The web site access system comprises an auto composer including the components of a composer and performer. The composer composes a web slide show presentation through automatic extraction of web page details from a desired web page. The web page details includes one or more of the following: a plurality of hyperlinks found within the desired web page that provides a plurality of URLs; a presentation/rendition text file within the desired web page that provides a plurality of URLs; and a meta tag within the desired web page that provides a plurality of URLs. The performer display the web slide show presentation in order of the plurality of URLS provided by the extracted web page details.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
23 Sep 2008
Earliest priority
31 Oct 2002
Est. expiry
1 Jul 2022
Validity challenges
2 on record90015988 · EPR · filed by Scott A. McKeown90015990 · EPR · filed by DLA Piper LLP (US)
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F15/00G06F13/00G06F17/30
Prosecution counsel
Husch Blackwell LLP
US7428707B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US7428707B2, from the published patent document
US7428707B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US7428707B2, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report in Eureka
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Austin HansleyCarnition, LLCPlaintiff
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

Case 2:15-cv-01495 · E.D. Tex. · closed 3 December 2015
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.

Who else has this plaintiff sued? Every case naming Carnition, with the patent, court and outcome for each Could my product read on this patent? Claim-by-claim comparison against your own design What else is litigated in this field? The dispute map for electric digital data processing
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2:15-cv-01495?

2:15-cv-01495 is a patent infringement action brought by Carnition, LLC against Motion Computing, Inc., filed on 3 Sep 2015 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 3 December 2015.

Which patent was asserted in 2:15-cv-01495?

US7428707B2 (“Customizable web site access system and method therefore”), assigned to ADAPTIVE AVENUE ASSOCIATES, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists CL920 Tablet PC proposal presentation system (www.motioncomputing.com).

How long did case 2:15-cv-01495 take?

91 calendar days, from filing on 3 Sep 2015 to closure on 3 December 2015.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:15-cv-01495?

Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Austin Hansley is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Carnition.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:15-cv-01495 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question
Next step

Go further with this record

Read how the method works, run it on your own product, then size the next step.

  • 01 / How-toUsing patent search for competitive intelligenceRead a rival's filings to see where its products are going.GuideRead
  • 02 / AI agentFTO ReportCheck whether your own product could read on these claims.Patsnap EurekaRun it
  • 03 / Free toolAI prior art searchDescribe an idea, get the closest patents.AI resultTry tool

More next stepsHow to run a freedom-to-operate analysis

Browse related dockets
Cases in E.D. Tex. Cases on electric digital data processing All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:15-cv-01495 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

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.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Patent figures. Any patent drawings shown are reproduced from the identified patent publications to illustrate the cited documents, and do not establish the scope, validity or enforceability of any patent.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.