US8429005B2 | Patent Litigation Record

13 cases on record

Cases on record: 13
Asserted by: Tangelo IP
Asserted against: Thermo Fisher Scientific · James Avery Craftsman · Hammacher Schlemmer & · FTD Companies · HEB Grocery Co., LP · School Specialty · Nordstrom · Dollar General · Euromarket Designs · New Moosejaw · Target · Williams-Sonoma · Tigerdirect
Courts: D. Del. · E.D. Tex. · S.D.N.Y.
Technology: business, commerce & admin data processing

Case no.	Parties	Court	Filed	Duration	Outcome
1:18-cv-00691	Tangelo IP, LLC v. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.	D. Del.	7 May 2018	123 d	Likely Settlement
2:18-cv-00189	Tangelo IP, LLC v. James Avery Craftsman, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	7 May 2018	210 d	Likely Settlement
1:18-cv-01711	Tangelo IP, LLC v. Hammacher Schlemmer & Co., Inc.	S.D.N.Y.	23 Feb 2018	59 d	Voluntary dismissal
1:17-cv-01621	Tangelo IP, LLC v. FTD Companies, Inc.	D. Del.	9 Nov 2017	124 d	Likely Settlement
2:17-cv-00575	Tangelo IP, LLC v. HEB Grocery Co., LP	E.D. Tex.	8 Aug 2017	72 d	Voluntary dismissal
2:17-cv-00143	Tangelo IP, LLC v. School Specialty, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	21 Feb 2017	85 d	Likely Settlement
2:17-cv-00144	Tangelo IP, LLC v. Nordstrom, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	21 Feb 2017	94 d	Likely Settlement
2:16-cv-00202	Tangelo IP, LLC v. Dollar General Corporation	E.D. Tex.	11 Mar 2016	334 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-01693	Tangelo IP, LLC v. Euromarket Designs, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	29 Oct 2015	175 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-01696	Tangelo IP, LLC v. New Moosejaw, LLC	E.D. Tex.	29 Oct 2015	105 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-00768	Tangelo IP, LLC v. Target Corporation	E.D. Tex.	15 May 2015	287 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-00769	Tangelo IP, LLC v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	15 May 2015	287 d	Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-00771	Tangelo IP, LLC v. Tigerdirect, Inc.	E.D. Tex.	15 May 2015	172 d	Likely Settlement

Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US8429005B2 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.

US8429005B2 Patent litigation record

13 cases on record

How strong is US8429005B2?