US9130900B2 Patent litigation record

Patent 9 cases

US9130900B2 has been asserted in 9 cases on record. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

9 cases on record

Cases on record
9
Asserted by
GeoSymm Ventures
Asserted against
Expedia · OSP Labs Private · Streebo Solutions · Pixelplex Labs · Streebo · Bitonic Technology Labs · Gupshup · Relinns Technologies
Courts
W.D. Tex. · E.D. Tex. · S.D. Tex. · S.D.N.Y. · D. Del.
Technology
electric digital data processing
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
7:26-cv-00053 GeoSymm Ventures, LLC v. Expedia, Inc. W.D. Tex. 17 Feb 2026 112 d Voluntary dismissal
2:25-cv-01200 GeoSymm Ventures, LLC v. OSP Labs Private Limited E.D. Tex. 9 Dec 2025 176 d Voluntary dismissal
2:25-cv-00915 GeoSymm Ventures, LLC v. Streebo Solutions Limited E.D. Tex. 29 Aug 2025 244 d Voluntary dismissal
2:25-cv-00739 GeoSymm Ventures, LLC v. Pixelplex Labs LLC E.D. Tex. 23 Jul 2025 315 d Voluntary dismissal
4:25-cv-02859 GeoSymm Ventures, LLC v. Streebo, Inc. S.D. Tex. 19 Jun 2025 71 d Voluntary dismissal
1:25-cv-04772 GeoSymm Ventures, LLC v. Pixelplex Labs LLC S.D.N.Y. 5 Jun 2025 67 d Voluntary dismissal
1:24-cv-00834 GeoSymm Ventures, LLC v. Bitonic Technology Labs, Inc. D. Del. 18 Jul 2024 356 d Voluntary dismissal
1:24-cv-00835 GeoSymm Ventures, LLC v. Gupshup, Inc. D. Del. 18 Jul 2024 165 d Dismissed with Prejudice
4:24-cv-01707 GeoSymm Ventures, LLC v. Relinns Technologies, Inc. S.D. Tex. 8 May 2024 181 d Voluntary dismissal
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US9130900B2 in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

How strong is US9130900B2?

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.