US7861865B2 Patent litigation record

Patent 9 cases

US7861865B2 has been asserted in 9 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

9 cases on record

Cases on record
9
Asserted by
Timely Inventions
Asserted against
Ring · Winplus North America · Samsung Electronics · Netgear · Reckitt Benckiser · Intuit · Grace Digital · Berkley International (NC) · Wynit Distribution
Courts
C.D. Cal.
Technology
containers & packaging
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
2:18-cv-02340 Timely Inventions, LLC v. Ring, Inc. C.D. Cal. 22 Mar 2018 124 d Voluntary dismissal
5:18-cv-00606 Timely Inventions, LLC v. Winplus North America, Inc. C.D. Cal. 22 Mar 2018 81 d Likely Settlement
2:18-cv-02227 Timely Inventions, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. C.D. Cal. 16 Mar 2018 195 d Out-of-court Settlement
2:17-cv-08864 Timely Inventions, LLC v. Netgear, Inc. C.D. Cal. 8 Dec 2017 186 d Procedural Outcome
2:17-cv-08873 Timely Inventions, LLC v. Reckitt Benckiser, LLC C.D. Cal. 8 Dec 2017 91 d Likely Settlement
2:17-cv-08854 Timely Inventions, LLC v. Intuit, Inc. C.D. Cal. 7 Dec 2017 189 d Likely Settlement
2:17-cv-08172 Timely Inventions, LLC v. Grace Digital, Inc. C.D. Cal. 8 Nov 2017 71 d Likely Settlement
2:17-cv-08173 Timely Inventions, LLC v. Berkley International (NC), LLC C.D. Cal. 8 Nov 2017 71 d Likely Settlement
2:16-cv-01323 Timely Inventions, LLC v. Wynit Distribution, LLC C.D. Cal. 25 Feb 2016 110 d Likely Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US7861865B2 in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

How strong is US7861865B2?

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.