Dialpad, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 11 cases

11 cases on record naming Dialpad, Inc.: 0 as claimant, 11 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

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

11 cases on record

Cases on record
11
As claimant
0
As respondent
11
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
Not recorded
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
1:25-cv-01392 ReadyComm LLC v. Dialpad Inc. Defendant D. Del. 17 Nov 2025 21 d Dismissed with Prejudice
7:25-cv-00412 Missed Call, LLC v. Dialpad, Inc. Defendant W.D. Tex. 8 Sep 2025 190 d Dismissed with Prejudice
1:25-cv-00762 Webcon Vectors, LLC v. Dialpad, Inc. Defendant D. Del. 20 Jun 2025 5 d Dismissed with Prejudice
5:24-cv-02524 Estech Systems IP, LLC v. Dialpad, Inc. Defendant E.D. Cal. 26 Apr 2024 147 d Dismissed with Prejudice
1:21-cv-01221 Valyrian IP, LLC v. Dialpad, Inc. Defendant D. Del. 26 Aug 2021 153 d Voluntary dismissal
6:21-cv-00642 Flypsi, Inc. v. Dialpad, Inc. Defendant W.D. Tex. 21 Jun 2021 450 d Likely Settlement
6:20-cv-01040 Rothschild Broadcast Distribution Systems, LLC v. Dialpad, Inc. Defendant W.D. Tex. 11 Nov 2020 233 d Voluntary dismissal
1:19-cv-01156 Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. Dialpad, Inc. Defendant W.D. Tex. 26 Nov 2019 129 d Voluntary dismissal
5:19-cv-07733 Tekvoke, LLC v. Dialpad, Inc. Defendant N.D. Cal. 24 Nov 2019 144 d Voluntary dismissal
1:19-cv-00608 Wave Linx, LLC v. Dialpad, Inc. Defendant D. Del. 29 Mar 2019 28 d Voluntary dismissal
3:18-cv-05242 RingCentral, Inc. v. Dialpad, Inc. Defendant N.D. Cal. 27 Aug 2018 316 d Voluntary dismissal
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Dialpad, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Dialpad 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.