US7356606B2 | Patent Litigation Record

14 cases on record

Cases on record: 14
Asserted by: Qommerce Systems
Asserted against: Ellison Systems · 1-800 Contacts · CafePress · CDW · Colony Brands · Beachbody · Edible Arrangements · Hayneedle · U.S. Auto Parts Network · Ebags · GameFly · OmahaSteaks.com · Zazzle · Buy.com
Courts: E.D. Tex.
Technology: electric digital data processing

Case no.	Parties	Court	Filed	Duration	Outcome
6:15-cv-00199	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. Ellison Systems, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	11 Mar 2015	216 d	Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-00169	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	10 Mar 2015	87 d	Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-00172	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. CafePress, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	10 Mar 2015	87 d	Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-00174	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. CDW Corporation	E.D. Tex.	10 Mar 2015	401 d	Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-00177	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. Colony Brands, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	10 Mar 2015	349 d	Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-00178	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. Beachbody, LLC	E.D. Tex.	10 Mar 2015	65 d	Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-00180	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. Edible Arrangements, LLC	E.D. Tex.	10 Mar 2015	322 d	Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-00183	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. Hayneedle, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	10 Mar 2015	343 d	Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-00187	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	10 Mar 2015	104 d	Voluntary dismissal
6:15-cv-00189	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. Ebags, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	10 Mar 2015	73 d	Voluntary dismissal
6:15-cv-00190	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. GameFly, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	10 Mar 2015	70 d	Voluntary dismissal
6:15-cv-00192	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. OmahaSteaks.com, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	10 Mar 2015	72 d	Voluntary dismissal
6:15-cv-00193	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. Zazzle, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	10 Mar 2015	328 d	Likely Settlement
6:14-cv-00109	Qommerce Systems, LLC v. Buy.com, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	17 Feb 2014	337 d	Likely Settlement

Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US7356606B2 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.

US7356606B2 Patent litigation record

14 cases on record

How strong is US7356606B2?