US7596708B1 Patent litigation record

Patent 7 cases

US7596708B1 has been asserted in 7 cases on record. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Analyse this patent in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

7 cases on record

Cases on record
7
Asserted by
Semcon IP
Asserted against
Louis Vuitton North America · TCT Mobile International · Shenzhen OnePlus Science & Technology · Kyocera · Huawei Device USA · MediaTek · STMicroelectronics
Courts
E.D. Tex.
Technology
electric digital data processing
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
2:19-cv-00122 Semcon IP, Inc. v. Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. E.D. Tex. 15 Apr 2019 452 d Voluntary dismissal
2:18-cv-00194 Semcon IP, Inc. v. TCT Mobile International Limited E.D. Tex. 9 May 2018 793 d Likely Settlement
2:18-cv-00196 Semcon IP, Inc. v. Shenzhen OnePlus Science & Technology Co., Ltd. E.D. Tex. 9 May 2018 818 d Voluntary dismissal
2:18-cv-00197 Semcon IP, Inc. v. Kyocera, Corp. E.D. Tex. 9 May 2018 539 d Likely Settlement
2:16-cv-00437 Semcon IP, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. E.D. Tex. 25 Apr 2016 765 d Out-of-court Settlement
2:16-cv-00438 Semcon IP, Inc. v. MediaTek, Inc. E.D. Tex. 25 Apr 2016 723 d Likely Settlement
2:16-cv-00439 Semcon IP, Inc. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. E.D. Tex. 25 Apr 2016 711 d Other
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US7596708B1 in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

How strong is US7596708B1?

Closest prior art, compared claim by claim, with every reference rated for how hard it hits.

Run a novelty search
10,000 free credits to start

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.

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.