Google, Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

2016-2575 Fed. Cir. Closed US8205237B2
Get a prior-art report

Other action filed 29 Aug 2016 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 9 Feb 2017, with US8205237B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: .

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8205237B2
Application no.
US11/977202
Case no.
2016-2575
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
29 Aug 2016 – 9 Feb 2017
Duration
164 days
Basis of termination
None recorded
Products & marks
None recorded
Validity challenges
1 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2016-2575, 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
US8205237B2 Inactive App. US11/977202

Identifying works, using a sub-linear time search, such as an approximate nearest neighbor search, for initiating a work-based action, such as an action on the internet

NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

A media work may be associated with an action by (a) extracting features from the media work, (b) determining an identification of the media work, based on the features extracted, using a sub-linear time search, such as an approximate nearest neighbor search for example, and (c) determining an action based on the identification of the media work determined. The media work may be an audio work. The features extracted from the work may include (A) a frequency decomposition of a signal of the audio work, (B) information samples of the audio work, (C) average intensities of sampled windows of the audio work, and/or (D) information from frequencies of the audio work.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
19 Jun 2012
Earliest priority
14 Sep 2000
Est. expiry
13 Sep 2021
Validity challenges
1 on recordIPR2015-00345 · filed by Google Inc.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04N7/173G06F17/30H04M1/72469
US8205237B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US8205237B2, from the published patent document
US8205237B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US8205237B2, 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
James ElacquaGoogle, Inc.Plaintiff
Charles R. MacedoNetwork-1 Technologies, 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 2016-2575 · Fed. Cir. · closed 9 February 2017
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 Google, 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 pictorial communication (video/tv)
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2016-2575?

2016-2575 is a patent other action brought by Google, Inc. against Network-1 Technologies, Inc., filed on 29 Aug 2016 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 9 February 2017.

Which patent was asserted in 2016-2575?

US8205237B2 (“Identifying works, using a sub-linear time search, such as an approximate nearest neighbor search, for initiating a work-based action, such as an action on the internet”), assigned to NETWORK-1 TECHNOLOGIES, INC., currently inactive.

How long did case 2016-2575 take?

164 calendar days, from filing on 29 Aug 2016 to closure on 9 February 2017.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2016-2575?

James Elacqua is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Google. Charles R. Macedo appears for defendant Network-1 Technologies.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2016-2575 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 steps5G standard essential patents and licensing

Browse related dockets
Cases in Fed. Cir. Cases on pictorial communication (video/tv) All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2016-2575 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.