US9549285B2 Patent litigation record

Patent 19 cases

US9549285B2 has been asserted in 19 cases on record. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

19 cases on record

Cases on record
19
Asserted by
Ortiz & Associates Consulting
Asserted against
SITA Information Networking Computing USA · IKEA US Retail · McDonald's USA · Macy's · Kroger · Staples · Nike · Costco Wholesale · Diebold Nixdorf · Sharp Imaging and Information Company of America · ScreenBeam · FedEx · Brother Mobile Solutions · Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA · Epson America · Vizio · Actiontec Electronics · Ricoh
Courts
N.D. Tex. · E.D. Tex. · W.D. Tex. · N.D. Ohio · N.D. Cal. · D. Colo.
Technology
wireless communication networks
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
3:25-cv-03070 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. SITA Information Networking Computing USA, Inc. N.D. Tex. 11 Nov 2025 190 d Voluntary dismissal
2:25-cv-00523 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. IKEA US Retail, LLC E.D. Tex. 13 May 2025 168 d Voluntary dismissal
2:25-cv-00457 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. McDonald's USA, LLC E.D. Tex. 1 May 2025 413 d Voluntary dismissal
7:25-cv-00033 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Macy's, Inc. W.D. Tex. 29 Jan 2025 428 d Dismissed with Prejudice
7:25-cv-00034 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Kroger, Co. W.D. Tex. 29 Jan 2025 190 d Voluntary dismissal
7:25-cv-00030 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Staples, Inc. W.D. Tex. 28 Jan 2025 134 d Voluntary dismissal
7:25-cv-00031 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Nike W.D. Tex. 28 Jan 2025 177 d Voluntary dismissal
7:25-cv-00032 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Costco Wholesale, Corp. W.D. Tex. 28 Jan 2025 251 d Case Dismissed
2:25-cv-00074 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. IKEA US Retail, LLC E.D. Tex. 24 Jan 2025 111 d Voluntary dismissal
5:24-cv-02096 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. N.D. Ohio 2 Dec 2024 137 d Voluntary dismissal
7:24-cv-00274 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Sharp Imaging and Information Company of America W.D. Tex. 31 Oct 2024 181 d Voluntary dismissal
3:24-cv-06394 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. ScreenBeam, Inc. N.D. Cal. 11 Sep 2024 152 d Voluntary dismissal
2:24-cv-00736 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. FedEx Corporation E.D. Tex. 9 Sep 2024 331 d Voluntary dismissal
1:24-cv-01198 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Brother Mobile Solutions, Inc. D. Colo. 1 May 2024 7 d Voluntary dismissal
6:23-cv-00471 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA, Inc. W.D. Tex. 27 Jun 2023 363 d Voluntary dismissal
2:23-cv-00308 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Epson America, Inc. E.D. Tex. 26 Jun 2023 102 d Voluntary dismissal
3:23-cv-00791 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Vizio, Inc. N.D. Tex. 14 Apr 2023 201 d Dismissed with Prejudice
6:23-cv-00139 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Actiontec Electronics, Inc. W.D. Tex. 22 Feb 2023 13 d Voluntary dismissal
6:21-cv-01178 Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC v. Ricoh Company, Ltd. W.D. Tex. 12 Nov 2021 515 d Case Dismissed
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US9549285B2 in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

How strong is US9549285B2?

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.