US7876239B2 | Patent Litigation Record

14 cases on record

Cases on record: 14
Asserted by: Eclipse IP
Asserted against: Panalpina · Elevengear · John Fluevog Shoes · Foursevens · Tile · The Wine Enthusiast · Knight Transportation · eSupplements · Hugo Boss · Puma North America · Multi Group Logistics · Kuehne + Nagel · Skye Associates · Woodcraft Supply
Courts: E.D. Tex. · D.N.J.
Technology: traffic control systems

Case no.	Parties	Court	Filed	Duration	Outcome
2:15-cv-00529	Eclipse IP, LLC v. Panalpina, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	20 Apr 2015	211 d	Likely Settlement
1:15-cv-02792	Eclipse IP, LLC v. Elevengear, LLC	D.N.J.	17 Apr 2015	116 d	Voluntary dismissal
1:15-cv-02793	Eclipse IP, LLC v. John Fluevog Shoes, Ltd.	D.N.J.	17 Apr 2015	139 d	Likely Settlement
1:15-cv-02794	Eclipse IP, LLC v. Foursevens, LLC	D.N.J.	17 Apr 2015	118 d	Voluntary dismissal
1:15-cv-02796	Eclipse IP, LLC v. Tile, Inc.	D.N.J.	17 Apr 2015	45 d	Voluntary dismissal
1:15-cv-02797	Eclipse IP, LLC v. The Wine Enthusiast, Inc.	D.N.J.	17 Apr 2015	482 d	Voluntary dismissal
2:15-cv-00478	Eclipse IP, LLC v. Knight Transportation, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	10 Apr 2015	221 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-00356	Eclipse IP, LLC v. eSupplements, LLC	E.D. Tex.	13 Mar 2015	62 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-00359	Eclipse IP, LLC v. Hugo Boss, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	13 Mar 2015	83 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-00266	Eclipse IP, LLC v. Puma North America, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	24 Feb 2015	100 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-00132	Eclipse IP, LLC v. Multi Group Logistics, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	3 Feb 2015	170 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-00007	Eclipse IP, LLC v. Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	5 Jan 2015	92 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-00008	Eclipse IP, LLC v. Skye Associates, LLC	E.D. Tex.	5 Jan 2015	232 d	Likely Settlement
2:14-cv-01063	Eclipse IP, LLC v. Woodcraft Supply, LLC	E.D. Tex.	20 Nov 2014	103 d	Likely Settlement

Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US7876239B2 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.

US7876239B2 Patent litigation record

14 cases on record

How strong is US7876239B2?