US5995102A | Patent Litigation Record

11 cases on record

Cases on record: 11
Asserted by: Lexos Media IP
Asserted against: Northern Tool & Equipment · Nike · Ace Hardware · eBay · Target · Oriental Trading · Amerimark Direct · Musician's Friend · Recreational Equipment · The Neiman Marcus Group · Express
Courts: E.D. Tex. · W.D. Tex. · D. Del.
Technology: business, commerce & admin data processing and electric digital data processing · business, commerce & admin data processing and display control circuits

Case no.	Parties	Court	Filed	Duration	Outcome
2:22-cv-00355	Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Northern Tool & Equipment, Co.	E.D. Tex.	12 Sep 2022	421 d	Dismissed with Prejudice
2:22-cv-00311	Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Nike	E.D. Tex.	11 Aug 2022	658 d	Dismissed with Prejudice
2:22-cv-00304	Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Ace Hardware, Corp.	E.D. Tex.	5 Aug 2022	263 d	Consent Judgment
6:22-cv-00648	Lexos Media IP, LLC v. eBay, Inc.	W.D. Tex.	22 Jun 2022	532 d	Case Transferred
2:22-cv-00175	Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Target, Corp.	E.D. Tex.	25 May 2022	601 d	Dismissed with Prejudice
1:17-cv-01318	Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Oriental Trading Co., Inc.	D. Del.	15 Sep 2017	264 d	Procedural Outcome
2:17-cv-00372	Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Amerimark Direct, LLC	E.D. Tex.	28 Apr 2017	823 d	Voluntary dismissal
2:16-cv-00749	Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Musician's Friend, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	11 Jul 2016	247 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-02107	Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Recreational Equipment, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	23 Dec 2015	233 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-02100	Lexos Media IP, LLC v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC	E.D. Tex.	18 Dec 2015	178 d	Voluntary dismissal
2:15-cv-02073	Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Express, LLC	E.D. Tex.	14 Dec 2015	211 d	Likely Settlement

Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US5995102A in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka

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.

US5995102A Patent litigation record

11 cases on record

How strong is US5995102A?