Execware, LLC v. Nextag, Inc.

1:14-cv-00239 D. Del. Closed US6216139B1
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 21 Feb 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 5 May 2016, with US6216139B1 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: likely settlement.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US6216139B1
Application no.
US08/561178
Case no.
1:14-cv-00239
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Judge
Leonard P. Stark
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
21 Feb 2014 – 5 May 2016
Duration
804 days
Basis of termination
Likely Settlement
Products & marks
Products that format and reformat tabular displays of records, parameters, and text data objects (http://www.nextag.com/)
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:14-cv-00239, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. 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
US6216139B1 Inactive App. US08/561178

Integrated dialog box for rapidly altering presentation of parametric text data objects on a computer display

LISTOU SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES LLC

An apparatus, method and article of manufacture of the present invention provide the ability to rapidly format and reformat tabular displays of records or text data objects organized according to the preferences of the user. The invention provides simplified, interactive means for naming categories or parameters associated with each text data object, for assigning values to each parameter for each text data object, and for constructing a sort order for displaying the text data objects. The features of the present invention allow a user, without need for specialized training or a user manual, rapidly to view the same or different sets of text data objects from differing perspectives, without cumbersome steps that could interrupt the user's line of thought.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
10 Apr 2001
Est. expiry
31 Aug 2017
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F17/24
Prosecution counsel
Ascenda Law Group, PC
US6216139B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US6216139B1, from the published patent document
US6216139B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US6216139B1, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report 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
Richard D. KirkExecware, LLCPlaintiff
Karen JacobsNextag, 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 1:14-cv-00239 · D. Del. · closed 5 May 2016
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 Execware, 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 1:14-cv-00239?

1:14-cv-00239 is a patent infringement action brought by Execware, LLC against Nextag, Inc., filed on 21 Feb 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 5 May 2016.

Which patent was asserted in 1:14-cv-00239?

US6216139B1 (“Integrated dialog box for rapidly altering presentation of parametric text data objects on a computer display”), assigned to LISTOU SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Products that format and reformat tabular displays of records, parameters, and text data objects (http://www.nextag.com/).

How long did case 1:14-cv-00239 take?

804 calendar days, from filing on 21 Feb 2014 to closure on 5 May 2016.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:14-cv-00239?

Judge Leonard P. Stark presided. Richard D. Kirk is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Execware. Karen Jacobs appears for defendant Nextag.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:14-cv-00239 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 D. Del. Cases on electric digital data processing All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:14-cv-00239 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.