SFA Systems, LLC Patent litigation record

Company 11 cases

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

Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

11 cases on record

Cases on record
11
As claimant
11
As respondent
0
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
G06Q40/00 · G06Q10/06 · G06Q10/08 · G06Q20/20 · G06Q30/00 · G06Q10/00
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
6:14-cv-00704 SFA Systems, LLC v. The Walt Disney Company Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 18 Aug 2014 246 d Voluntary dismissal
6:14-cv-00706 SFA Systems, LLC v. Groupon, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 18 Aug 2014 338 d Likely Settlement
6:14-cv-00707 SFA Systems, LLC v. Hotels.Com, LP Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 18 Aug 2014 147 d Likely Settlement
6:14-cv-00708 SFA Systems, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 18 Aug 2014 269 d Likely Settlement
6:14-cv-00709 SFA Systems, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 18 Aug 2014 427 d Likely Settlement
2014-1712 SFA Systems, LLC v. Newegg, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 12 Aug 2014 332 d Closed
6:14-cv-00173 SFA Systems, LLC v. MasterCard Incorporated Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 14 Mar 2014 584 d Likely Settlement
6:14-cv-00174 SFA Systems, LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 14 Mar 2014 321 d Likely Settlement
6:14-cv-00175 SFA Systems, LLC v. Staples, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 14 Mar 2014 404 d Likely Settlement
6:14-cv-00176 SFA Systems, LLC v. Visa, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 14 Mar 2014 515 d Likely Settlement
6:10-cv-00523 SFA Systems, LLC v. Blockbuster, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 1 Oct 2010 2590 d Stayed
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming SFA Systems, LLC in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what SFA 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.