US7706819B2 | Patent Litigation Record

11 cases on record

Cases on record: 11
Asserted by: Aeritas · PredictSpring
Asserted against: Panda Restaurant Group · WestJet Airlines · The Wendy's · 7-Eleven · The Home Depot · Chick-Fil-A · BestBuy.Com · Aeritas · Charlotte Russe · Macy's · La Quinta
Courts: W.D. Tex. · E.D. Tex. · N.D. Cal.
Technology: wireless communication networks · wireless communication networks and telephonic communication

Case no.	Parties	Court	Filed	Duration	Outcome
6:22-cv-01021	Aeritas, LLC v. Panda Restaurant Group, Inc.	W.D. Tex.	3 Oct 2022	849 d	Case Dismissed
6:20-cv-01161	Aeritas, LLC v. WestJet Airlines, Ltd.	W.D. Tex.	18 Dec 2020	775 d	Case Dismissed
6:19-cv-00357	Aeritas, LLC v. The Wendy's Company	E.D. Tex.	4 Aug 2019	139 d	Voluntary dismissal
6:19-cv-00358	Aeritas, LLC v. 7-Eleven, Inc	E.D. Tex.	4 Aug 2019	109 d	Likely Settlement
6:19-cv-00412	Aeritas, LLC v. The Home Depot, Inc.	W.D. Tex.	9 Jul 2019	303 d	Voluntary dismissal
6:19-cv-00052	Aeritas, LLC v. Chick-Fil-A, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	13 Feb 2019	225 d	Voluntary dismissal
6:18-cv-00327	Aeritas, LLC v. BestBuy.Com, LLC	E.D. Tex.	4 Jul 2018	225 d	Likely Settlement
5:17-cv-03561	PredictSpring, Inc. v. Aeritas, LLC	N.D. Cal.	20 Jun 2017	98 d	Out-of-court Settlement
6:17-cv-00328	Aeritas, LLC v. Charlotte Russe, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	2 Jun 2017	116 d	Likely Settlement
6:16-cv-01082	Aeritas, LLC v. Macy's, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	28 Jul 2016	330 d	Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-01097	Aeritas, LLC v. La Quinta Holdings, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	30 Nov 2015	122 d	Voluntary dismissal

Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US7706819B2 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.

US7706819B2 Patent litigation record

11 cases on record

How strong is US7706819B2?