BPS Direct, LLC Patent litigation record

Company 10 cases

10 cases on record naming BPS Direct, LLC: 0 as claimant, 10 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
0
As respondent
10
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
Not recorded
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
4:25-cv-00824 SemiLED Innovations, LLC v. BPS Direct, LLC Defendant E.D. Tex. 30 Jul 2025 169 d Closed
1:23-cv-04172 Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC v. BPS Direct, LLC Defendant N.D. Ill. 28 Jun 2023 110 d Dismissed without Prejudice
6:22-cv-01090 Aml IP, LLC v. BPS Direct, LLC Defendant W.D. Tex. 20 Oct 2022 546 d Dismissed with Prejudice
6:22-cv-00088 Linfo IP, LLC v. BPS Direct, LLC Defendant W.D. Tex. 21 Jan 2022 186 d Voluntary dismissal
1:19-cv-00184 Guada Technologies, LLC v. Bps direct, LLC Defendant D. Del. 30 Jan 2019 41 d Voluntary dismissal
2:17-cv-00218 Location Services IP, LLC v. BPS Direct, LLC Defendant E.D. Tex. 22 Mar 2017 22 d Voluntary dismissal
2:16-cv-00407 Retrospection Marketing, LLC v. Bps direct, LLC Defendant E.D. Tex. 13 Apr 2016 572 d Voluntary dismissal
8:15-cv-01820 Optimer Performance Fibers, Inc. v. BPS Direct, LLC Defendant C.D. Cal. 6 Nov 2015 119 d Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-00937 Kobace, LLC v. BPS Direct, LLC Defendant E.D. Tex. 28 Oct 2015 63 d Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-00956 Oberalis, LLC v. Bps direct, LLC Defendant E.D. Tex. 5 Jun 2015 83 d Voluntary dismissal
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming BPS Direct, LLC in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what BPS Direct 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.