Onscreen Dynamics, LLC Patent litigation record

Company 25 cases

25 cases on record naming Onscreen Dynamics, LLC: 25 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

25 cases on record

Cases on record
25
As claimant
25
As respondent
0
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
G06F3/041 · G06F3/0488 · G06F1/16 · G06F3/01 · G06F15/00 · G06F13/00
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
2:25-cv-00535 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Group 1 Automotive, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 16 May 2025 82 d Voluntary dismissal
7:25-cv-00230 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Penske Automotive Group, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tex. 16 May 2025 136 d Voluntary dismissal
2:24-cv-00708 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Hendrick Automotive Group, LLC Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 29 Aug 2024 116 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2:24-cv-00709 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Sewell Automotive Companies, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 29 Aug 2024 179 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2:24-cv-00710 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Sonic Automotive, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 29 Aug 2024 179 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2:24-cv-00247 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 16 Apr 2024 106 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2:24-cv-00248 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Carvana, LLC Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 16 Apr 2024 56 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2:24-cv-00249 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. An Dealership Holding, Corp. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 16 Apr 2024 134 d Appeal Granted
2:24-cv-00251 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. EAN Holdings, LLC Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 16 Apr 2024 148 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2:23-cv-00159 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Paccar, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 7 Apr 2023 53 d Case Terminated
2:22-cv-00475 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 16 Dec 2022 168 d Case Dismissed
2:22-cv-03170 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Volvo Car USA, LLC Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 10 May 2022 136 d Voluntary dismissal
6:22-cv-00222 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. Plaintiff W.D. Tex. 1 Mar 2022 77 d Voluntary dismissal
2:21-cv-06796 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. BMW of North America, LLC Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 23 Aug 2021 84 d Voluntary dismissal
2:21-cv-06797 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Tesla, Inc. Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 23 Aug 2021 84 d Voluntary dismissal
2:21-cv-06734 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA ,LLC Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 19 Aug 2021 103 d Voluntary dismissal
2:21-cv-06739 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Volvo Car USA, LLC Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 19 Aug 2021 96 d Voluntary dismissal
2:21-cv-03181 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Pioneer POS Solution, Inc. Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 14 Apr 2021 250 d Voluntary dismissal
6:20-cv-00874 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Embross North America, Ltd. Plaintiff W.D. Tex. 25 Sep 2020 94 d Voluntary dismissal
6:20-cv-00875 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Getac Technology Corporation Plaintiff W.D. Tex. 25 Sep 2020 94 d Voluntary dismissal
4:20-cv-06322 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Elo Touch Solutions, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 8 Sep 2020 90 d Closed
4:20-cv-05553 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Asustek Computer, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 10 Aug 2020 162 d Voluntary dismissal
4:20-cv-05555 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Sharp Corporation Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 10 Aug 2020 225 d Voluntary dismissal
4:18-cv-00267 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 16 Apr 2018 218 d Out-of-court Settlement
4:18-cv-00268 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 16 Apr 2018 217 d Out-of-court Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Onscreen Dynamics, LLC in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Onscreen Dynamics 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.