Touchstream Technologies, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 9 cases

9 cases on record naming Touchstream Technologies, Inc.: 6 as claimant, 3 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

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

9 cases on record

Cases on record
9
As claimant
6
As respondent
3
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
G06F16/74 · G06F16/951 · G06F9/451 · G06F3/00 · G06F3/01 · H04N21/40 · H04L29/06
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
8:24-cv-02328 Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Vizio, Inc. Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 25 Oct 2024 62 d Voluntary dismissal
2:24-cv-00739 Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Yamaha Corporation Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 10 Sep 2024 506 d Closed
24-1207 Google, LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 30 Nov 2023 684 d Patent Upheld
24-1208 Google, LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 30 Nov 2023 684 d Patent Upheld
24-1210 Google, LLC v. Touchstream Technologies, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 30 Nov 2023 684 d Patent Upheld
2:23-cv-00060 Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Altice USA, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 17 Feb 2023 437 d Case Transferred
2:23-cv-00062 Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast, Corp. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 17 Feb 2023 763 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2:23-cv-00059 Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Tex. 16 Feb 2023 755 d Judgment on the merits for Defendant
1:17-cv-06247 Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc. Plaintiff S.D.N.Y. 17 Aug 2017 890 d Voluntary dismissal
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Touchstream Technologies, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Touchstream Technologies 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.