Document Security Systems, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 18 cases

18 cases on record naming Document Security Systems, Inc.: 16 as claimant, 2 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

18 cases on record

Cases on record
18
As claimant
16
As respondent
2
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
H01L33/00 · H01C1/14 · H01L33/48 · H01L33/62 · H01L33/20 · F21V29/00 · H01J1/62 · C09K11/02 · H01L33/50 · H05B33/00 · H01L29/22 · H10D62/86 · H01L23/498 · H01L23/48
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
22-1704 Nichia Corporation v. Document Security Systems, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 20 Apr 2022 561 d Patent Upheld
22-1372 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 18 Jan 2022 808 d Unpatentable
2022-1280 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 20 Dec 2021 10 d Closed
2020-2287 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Nichia Corporation Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 17 Sep 2020 586 d Closed
2020-2261 Nichia Corporation v. Document Security Systems, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 14 Sep 2020 589 d Closed
2019-2430 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 23 Sep 2019 133 d Closed
2:19-cv-08141 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 19 Sep 2019 837 d Likely Settlement
8:19-cv-01792 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 18 Sep 2019 288 d Stayed
2019-2281 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 19 Aug 2019 994 d Closed
2:17-cv-08849 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Nichia Corporation Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 7 Dec 2017 229 d Stayed
2:17-cv-06050 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Lite-on, Inc. Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 15 Aug 2017 346 d Stayed
2:17-cv-05184 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Osram Sylvania, Inc. Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 13 Jul 2017 201 d Likely Settlement
2:17-cv-04263 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 8 Jun 2017 414 d Stayed
2:17-cv-04273 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 8 Jun 2017 414 d Stayed
8:17-cv-00981 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 7 Jun 2017 415 d Stayed
2:17-cv-00308 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 13 Apr 2017 56 d Voluntary dismissal
2:17-cv-00309 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Cree, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 13 Apr 2017 56 d Voluntary dismissal
2:17-cv-00310 Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 13 Apr 2017 56 d Voluntary dismissal
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Document Security Systems, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Document Security Systems 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.