B.E. Technology, LLC Patent litigation record

Company 27 cases

27 cases on record naming B.E. Technology, LLC: 25 as claimant, 2 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

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

27 cases on record

Cases on record
27
As claimant
25
As respondent
2
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
G06Q30/00 · G06F9/445 · G06Q30/02 · G06F15/00 · G06F9/30
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
23-1127 B.E. Technology LLC v. Twitter, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 8 Nov 2022 644 d Unpatentable
23-1128 B.E. Technology LLC v. Twitter, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 8 Nov 2022 644 d Unpatentable
23-1130 B.E. Technology LLC v. Twitter, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 8 Nov 2022 644 d Unpatentable
23-1131 Google, LLC v. B.E. Technology LLC Defendant Fed. Cir. 8 Nov 2022 644 d Unpatentable
23-1132 Twitter, Inc. v. B.E. Technology LLC Defendant Fed. Cir. 8 Nov 2022 644 d Appeal Dismissed
19-1323 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Facebook, Inc. Plaintiff U.S. Supreme Court 1 Jun 2020 130 d Appeal Denied
1:20-cv-00621 B.E. Technology LLC v. Twitter, Inc. Plaintiff D. Del. 7 May 2020 1814 d Dismissed with Prejudice
1:20-cv-00622 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Google, LLC Plaintiff D. Del. 7 May 2020 502 d Stayed
2018-2356 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Facebook, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 12 Sep 2018 392 d Closed
2:12-cv-02866 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, LLC Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 2 Oct 2012 1905 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02831 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Apple, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 22 Sep 2012 1915 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02833 B.E. Technology, LLC v. People Media, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 22 Sep 2012 1915 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02834 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Match.com, LLC Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 22 Sep 2012 1915 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02823 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 21 Sep 2012 1950 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02824 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Samsung TeleCommunications America, LLC Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 21 Sep 2012 1916 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02825 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 21 Sep 2012 1916 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02826 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 21 Sep 2012 1946 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02827 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Sony Mobile Communications (U.S.A.), Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 21 Sep 2012 1946 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02828 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 21 Sep 2012 1946 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02829 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 21 Sep 2012 1916 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02830 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Google, LLC Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 21 Sep 2012 1916 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02781 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 10 Sep 2012 1927 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02782 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Pandora Media, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 10 Sep 2012 1961 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02783 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Twitter, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 10 Sep 2012 1957 d Likely Settlement
2:12-cv-02767 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Amazon Digital Services, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 7 Sep 2012 2230 d Case Dismissed
2:12-cv-02769 B.E. Technology, LLC v. Facebook, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 7 Sep 2012 1930 d Judgment on the Merits
2:12-cv-02772 B.E. Technology, LLC v. LinkedIn Corporation Plaintiff W.D. Tenn. 7 Sep 2012 1930 d Likely Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming B.E. Technology, LLC in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what B.E. Technology 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.