MPH Technologies Oy v. Apple Computer, Inc.

3:18-cv-05935 E.D. Cal. Closed

Infringement action filed 27 Sep 2018 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, asserting 8 patents, including 3 patents titled “Method and system for sending a message through a secure connection” (US9712502B2, US8346949B2 and US9838362B2). The case closed 30 Sep 2024. Products listed in the record: Apple’s iMessage and FaceTime services and MPH’s virtual private network (VPN) and secure messaging technologies.

View the 8 asserted patents in Patsnap Eureka Claims, drawings and current legal status

Case summary

Plaintiff
MPH Technologies Oy
Defendant
Apple Computer, Inc.
Patents asserted
US9712502B2“Method and system for sending a message through a secure connection”US8346949B2“Method and system for sending a message through a secure connection”US9838362B2“Method and system for sending a message through a secure connection”US7620810B2US7937581B2US9712494B2US8037302B2US9762397B2
Products listed
Apple’s iMessage and FaceTime services; MPH’s virtual private network (VPN) and secure messaging technologies
Court
E.D. Cal.
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Filed
27 Sep 2018
Closed
30 Sep 2024 (2195 days)
Recorded category
Dismissed without Prejudice
Case no.
3:18-cv-05935
Counsel of record · 19 attorneys, 8 firms
  • Ashley E. LaValley, plaintiff counsel
  • Brian Erik Haan, plaintiff counsel
  • Christopher J. Lee, plaintiff counsel
  • David J. Sheikh, plaintiff counsel
  • Dragan Gjorgiev, plaintiff counsel
  • James Daniel Mitchell, plaintiff counsel
  • Patricia L. Peden, plaintiff counsel
  • Richard Burns Megley Jr., plaintiff counsel
  • Bethany Marvin Stevens, defendant counsel
  • Bita Rahebi, defendant counsel
  • Hannah L. Cannom, defendant counsel
  • Jennifer J. Schmidt, defendant counsel
  • Nima I. Kiaei, defendant counsel
  • Richard S.J. Hung, defendant counsel
  • Robin L. Brewer, defendant counsel
  • Rose S. Lee, defendant counsel
  • Rudolph Kim, defendant counsel
  • Ryan James Malloy, defendant counsel
  • Stefani Elise Shanberg, defendant counsel
  • Plaintiff firms: Burke, Williams & Sorensen LLP; Lee Sheikh & Haan LLC; Lee Sheikh Megley & Haan LLC; Nixon Peabody LLC
  • Defendant firms: Morrison & Foerster LLP; Paul Hastings LLP; Perkins Coie LLP; Walker Stevens Cannom LLP
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Party, attorney and judge names are shown with standard capitalization; products and categories appear as recorded in the docket. Patent titles from Patsnap patent data.
Closing order

How the case ended

The Court’s entry of the stipulated dismissal regarding the claims, defenses, and counterclaims on U.S. Patent No. 8,037,302 (ECF No. 162) resolves all remaining issues in this lawsuit and renders the partial stipulated judgment (ECF No. 161) a final judgment. The above-entitled lawsuit started with eight patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,346,949; 9,762,397; 9,712,494; 9,712,502; 9,838,362; 7,620,810; 7,937,581; and 8,037,302. (Complaint, ECF No. 1). On January 11, 2023, the Court entered the parties’ stipulated dismissal with prejudice regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,620,810 (ECF No. 65). On September 25, 2024, the Court entered a Partial Stipulated Judgment and Order for United States Patent Nos. 8,346,949, 9,762,397, 9,712,494, 9,712,502, 9,838,362 and 7,937,581 (ECF No. 161). The entry of the Partial Stipulated Judgment and Order on United States Patent Nos. 8,346,949, 9,762,397, 9,712,494, 9,712,502, 9,838,362 and 7,937,581 (ECF No. 161) left one patent-in-suit in the case, namely U.S. Patent No. 8,037,302. On September 25, 2024, the Court entered the parties’ second and supplemental stipulated dismissal without prejudice regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,037,302, which disposed of all remaining issues in this case. In summary, there is no patent-in-suit that remains in the case after the entry of ECF Nos. 65, 161 and 162. Accordingly, no claims remain to dismiss in a notice of dismissal. Per Rules 58(c) and 79(a)(2)(C), the Court should enter a final judgment stating that in view of entry of the stipulated dismissals (ECF Nos. 65 and 162), the Partial Stipulated Judgment and Order on United States Patent Nos. 8,346,949, 9,762,397, 9,712,494, 9,712,502, 9,838,362 and 7,937,581 (ECF No. 161) is hereby entered as a final judgment. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close and terminate the case.

Case 3:18-cv-05935 · E.D. Cal. · closed 30 September 2024 · Reproduced verbatim from the case record
The patents behind this order. Read the full claims of all 8 asserted patents. Open in Patsnap Eureka
Before you launch

Check your product against patent claims

FTO Search in Patsnap Eureka finds patent claims relevant to your product’s technical features, so you can review them before launch.

Run an FTO Search
Monthly newsletter

Need a monthly report on closed US patent cases?

Every case that closed last month, with the court, the outcome and the patents involved.

By submitting my email, I consent to receiving marketing communications from Patsnap by email and telephone. I understand that I can withdraw my consent at any time. Please refer to the Privacy Policy for more information on how we handle your personal data.

Docket fields sourced from PACER via Patsnap Litigation Data. Patent bibliographic data from Patsnap.

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:18-cv-05935 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.

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.