Flashpoint Technology, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 6 cases

6 cases on record naming Flashpoint Technology, Inc.: 6 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

6 cases on record

Cases on record
6
As claimant
6
As respondent
0
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
H04N1/21 · H04N5/77 · H04N5/91 · G06F17/30 · G06T3/40 · G06F3/00 · H04N1/32 · H04N5/278 · H04N5/232 · H04N1/00 · H04N5/907
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
1:14-cv-00317 Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. HTC Corporation Plaintiff D. Del. 7 Mar 2014 402 d Other
1:09-cv-00106 Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. Aiptek Inc. Plaintiff D. Del. 19 Feb 2009 2482 d Likely Settlement
1:08-cv-00927 Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. Kyocera Communications, Inc. Plaintiff D. Del. 9 Dec 2008 2554 d Likely Settlement
1:08-cv-00928 Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. General Imaging Co. Plaintiff D. Del. 9 Dec 2008 2554 d Likely Settlement
1:08-cv-00139 Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. Aiptek, Inc. Plaintiff D. Del. 7 Mar 2008 2828 d Dismissed without Prejudice
1:08-cv-00140 Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC Plaintiff D. Del. 7 Mar 2008 2831 d Likely Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Flashpoint Technology, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Flashpoint 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.