Data Engine Technologies, LLC v. Google, Inc. et al.

2017-1135 Fed. Cir. Closed 6 patents
Get a prior-art report

Other action filed 1 Nov 2016 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 9 Oct 2018, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: .

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US5416895AUS5784545AUS5303146AUS5623591AUS6282551B1US5590259A
Case no.
2017-1135
Verdict cause
Other action
Court
Fed. Cir.
Court level
Court of Appeals
Case region
District of Columbia
Judge
None recorded
Trial level
Appeal
Filed – Closed
1 Nov 2016 – 9 Oct 2018
Duration
707 days
Basis of termination
None recorded
Products & marks
Software application Google Docs Spreadsheet and Google Sheets
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2017-1135, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US5416895A Inactive App. US07/866658

System and methods for improved spreadsheet interface with user-familiar objects

INPRISE CORPORATION

An electronic spreadsheet system of the present invention includes a notebook interface having a plurality of notebook pages, each of which may contain a spread of information cells, or other desired page type (e.g., Graphs page). Methods are provided for rapidly accessing and processing information on the different pages, including displaying a plurality of page identifiers for selecting individual pages, and further including a preferred syntax for referencing information. Additional methods are provided for editing cells and blocks of cells.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
16 May 1995
Est. expiry
16 May 2012
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F17/22G06F17/21G06F3/033G06F9/44G06F17/24G06F3/048G06Q10/00
Prosecution counsel
DLA PIPER LLP US
US5416895A patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US5416895A, from the published patent document
US5416895A patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US5416895A, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report in Eureka
US5784545A Inactive App. US08/420522

System and methods for improved spreadsheet interface with user-familiar objects

BORLAND SOFTWARE CORPORATION

An electronic spreadsheet system of the present invention includes a notebook interface having a plurality of notebook pages, each of which may contain a spread of information cells, or other desired page type (e.g., Graphs page). Methods are provided for rapidly accessing and processing information on the different pages, including displaying a plurality of page identifiers for selecting individual pages, and further including a preferred syntax for referencing information. Additional methods are provided for editing cells and blocks of cells.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
21 Jul 1998
Est. expiry
21 Jul 2015
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F17/24G06F9/44G06F3/033G06F17/22G06F17/21G06Q10/00G06F3/048
Prosecution counsel
DLA PIPER LLP US
US5784545A patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US5784545A, from the published patent document
US5784545A patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US5784545A, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report in Eureka

Also asserted in this case

4 more

The docket lists 6 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 4 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.

Open all 6 patents in Eureka
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Amir H. AlaviData Engine Technologies, LLCPlaintiff
Jonathan K. WaldropGoogle, Inc.Defendant
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

Case 2017-1135 · Fed. Cir. · closed 9 October 2018
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

Who else has this plaintiff sued? Every case naming Data Engine Technologies, with the patent, court and outcome for each Could my product read on this patent? Claim-by-claim comparison against your own design What else is litigated in this field? The dispute map for electric digital data processing
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2017-1135?

2017-1135 is a patent other action brought by Data Engine Technologies, LLC against Google, Inc., filed on 1 Nov 2016 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 9 October 2018.

Which patents were asserted in 2017-1135?

US5416895A (“System and methods for improved spreadsheet interface with user-familiar objects”), assigned to INPRISE CORPORATION, currently inactive; US5784545A (“System and methods for improved spreadsheet interface with user-familiar objects”), assigned to BORLAND SOFTWARE CORPORATION, currently inactive; US5303146A (“System and methods for improved scenario management in an electronic spreadsheet”), assigned to BORLAND SOFTWARE CORPORATION; US5623591A (“System and methods for building spreadsheet applications”), assigned to BORLAND SOFTWARE CORPORATION; US6282551B1 (“System and methods for improved spreadsheet interface with user-familiar objects”), assigned to INPRISE CORPORATION; US5590259A (“System and methods for improved spreadsheet interface with user-familiar objects”), assigned to BORLAND SOFTWARE CORPORATION. The record also lists Software application Google Docs Spreadsheet and Google Sheets.

How long did case 2017-1135 take?

707 calendar days, from filing on 1 Nov 2016 to closure on 9 October 2018.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2017-1135?

Amir H. Alavi is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Data Engine Technologies. Jonathan K. Waldrop appears for defendant Google.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2017-1135 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question
Next step

Go further with this record

Read how the method works, run it on your own product, then size the next step.

  • 01 / How-toUsing patent search for competitive intelligenceRead a rival's filings to see where its products are going.GuideRead
  • 02 / AI agentFTO ReportCheck whether your own product could read on these claims.Patsnap EurekaRun it
  • 03 / Free toolAI prior art searchDescribe an idea, get the closest patents.AI resultTry tool

More next stepsHow to run a freedom-to-operate analysis

Browse related dockets
Cases in Fed. Cir. Cases on electric digital data processing All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2017-1135 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.

Patent figures. Any patent drawings shown are reproduced from the identified patent publications to illustrate the cited documents, and do not establish the scope, validity or enforceability of any patent.

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.