US8295802B2 Patent litigation record

Patent 10 cases

US8295802B2 has been asserted in 10 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

10 cases on record

Cases on record
10
Asserted by
UrgenSync
Asserted against
Lingo · Mitel Networks · Voipo · Alliance Phones · Axvoice · Cox Communications · deltathree · Earthlink · Birch Communications · Intermedia.NET
Courts
E.D. Tex.
Technology
telephonic communication
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
6:15-cv-00421 UrgenSync, LLC v. Lingo, Inc. E.D. Tex. 17 Apr 2015 269 d Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-00423 UrgenSync, LLC v. Mitel Networks, Inc. E.D. Tex. 17 Apr 2015 96 d Voluntary dismissal
6:15-cv-00434 UrgenSync, LLC v. Voipo, LLC E.D. Tex. 17 Apr 2015 21 d Voluntary dismissal
6:15-cv-00401 UrgenSync, LLC v. Alliance Phones, Inc. E.D. Tex. 15 Apr 2015 128 d Voluntary dismissal
6:15-cv-00402 UrgenSync, LLC v. Axvoice, Inc. E.D. Tex. 15 Apr 2015 72 d Voluntary dismissal
6:15-cv-00409 UrgenSync, LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc. E.D. Tex. 15 Apr 2015 64 d Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-00410 UrgenSync, LLC v. deltathree, Inc. E.D. Tex. 15 Apr 2015 272 d Case Dismissed
6:15-cv-00412 UrgenSync, LLC v. Earthlink, LLC E.D. Tex. 15 Apr 2015 64 d Likely Settlement
6:15-cv-00413 UrgenSync, LLC v. Birch Communications, Inc. E.D. Tex. 15 Apr 2015 72 d Voluntary dismissal
6:15-cv-00414 UrgenSync, LLC v. Intermedia.NET, Inc. E.D. Tex. 15 Apr 2015 114 d Voluntary dismissal
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US8295802B2 in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

How strong is US8295802B2?

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.