2bcom, LLC Patent litigation record

Company 10 cases

10 cases on record naming 2bcom, LLC: 10 as claimant, 0 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Profile this company in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

10 cases on record

Cases on record
10
As claimant
10
As respondent
0
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
H02J7/00 · G08C25/00 · G06F1/28 · G08C17/00 · H04L12/64 · H04L12/28 · H04L12/40 · H04L12/66 · H04B7/00 · H04L29/08 · H04W24/00
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
1:23-cv-03979 2bcom, LLC v. Curtis International, Ltd. Plaintiff S.D.N.Y. 12 May 2023 138 d Dismissed with Prejudice
1:23-cv-03896 2bcom, LLC v. Fortinet, Inc. Plaintiff S.D.N.Y. 9 May 2023 71 d Voluntary dismissal
1:22-cv-06903 2bcom, LLC v. TCL Technology Group, Corp. Plaintiff E.D.N.Y. 11 Nov 2022 538 d Voluntary dismissal
8:22-cv-01363 2bcom, LLC v. Blu Products, Inc. Plaintiff M.D. Fla. 15 Jun 2022 132 d Voluntary dismissal
8:21-cv-01595 2bcom, LLC v. Digi International, Inc. Plaintiff M.D. Fla. 1 Jul 2021 207 d Voluntary dismissal
3:21-cv-04605 2bcom, LLC v. Logitech, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 15 Jun 2021 213 d Voluntary dismissal
3:21-cv-00333 2bcom, LLC v. Netgear, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 13 Jan 2021 217 d Voluntary dismissal
2:20-cv-03537 2bcom, LLC v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 16 Apr 2020 182 d Voluntary dismissal
8:20-cv-00708 2bcom, LLC v. TP Link USA Corporation Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 10 Apr 2020 116 d Voluntary dismissal
2:20-cv-10023 2bcom, LLC v. Fca U.S., LLC Plaintiff E.D. Mich. 6 Jan 2020 248 d Voluntary dismissal
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming 2bcom, LLC in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what 2bcom is protecting

Portfolio, claim scope and where its coverage is thin. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Analyse this portfolio
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

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.

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.