Software Research, Inc. v. Developer Express, Inc.

3:16-cv-00465 N.D. Cal. Closed 6 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 27 Jan 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and closed 5 Apr 2016, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: likely settlement.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patents involved
US8392890B2US8495585B2US8984491B2US7757175B2US8327271B2US8650493B2
Case no.
3:16-cv-00465
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
N.D. Cal.
Court level
District Court
Case region
California
Judge
Edward M. Chen
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
27 Jan 2016 – 5 Apr 2016
Duration
69 days
Basis of termination
Likely Settlement
Products & marks
TestCafe - Website testing software
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 3:16-cv-00465, United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8392890B2 Inactive App. US12/247753

Method and system for testing websites

SOFTWARE RESEARCH, INC.

Methods and systems to test of web browser enabled applications are disclosed. In one embodiment, a browser application can allow a user to perform test and analysis processes on a candidate web browser enabled application. The test enabled browser can use special functions and facilities that are built into the test enabled browser. One implementation of the invention pertains to functional testing, and another implementation of the invention pertains to pertains to site analysis.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
5 Mar 2013
Earliest priority
15 Oct 2007
Est. expiry
17 Jan 2030
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F9/44G06F11/00G06F3/00G06F40/143H04L67/02
Prosecution counsel
TI Law Group, PC
US8392890B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US8392890B2, from the published patent document
US8392890B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US8392890B2, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report in Eureka
US8495585B2 Inactive App. US13/764628

Method and system for testing websites

SOFTWARE RESEARCH, INC.

Methods and systems to test of web browser enabled applications are disclosed. In one embodiment, a browser application can allow a user to perform test and analysis processes on a candidate web browser enabled application. The test enabled browser can use special functions and facilities that are built into the test enabled browser. One implementation of the invention pertains to functional testing, and another implementation of the invention pertains to pertains to site analysis.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
23 Jul 2013
Earliest priority
15 Oct 2007
Est. expiry
15 Oct 2022
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F9/44G06F11/00G06F3/00G06F40/143H04L67/02
Prosecution counsel
TI Law Group, PC
US8495585B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US8495585B2, from the published patent document
US8495585B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US8495585B2, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report in Eureka

Also asserted in this case

4 more

The docket lists 6 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 4 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.

Open all 6 patents in Eureka
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Douglas Stephen TilleySoftware Research, Inc.Plaintiff
William Joseph RobinsonDeveloper Express, Inc.Defendant
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

Case 3:16-cv-00465 · N.D. Cal. · closed 5 April 2016
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

Who else has this plaintiff sued? Every case naming Software Research, with the patent, court and outcome for each Could my product read on this patent? Claim-by-claim comparison against your own design What else is litigated in this field? The dispute map for electric digital data processing
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 3:16-cv-00465?

3:16-cv-00465 is a patent infringement action brought by Software Research, Inc. against Developer Express, Inc., filed on 27 Jan 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case closed on 5 April 2016.

Which patents were asserted in 3:16-cv-00465?

US8392890B2 (“Method and system for testing websites”), assigned to SOFTWARE RESEARCH, INC., currently inactive; US8495585B2 (“Method and system for testing websites”), assigned to SOFTWARE RESEARCH, INC., currently inactive; US8984491B2 (“Synchronization checks for use in testing websites”), assigned to SOFTWARE RESEARCH, INC.; US7757175B2 (“Method and system for testing websites”), assigned to SOFTWARE RESEARCH, INC.; US8327271B2 (“Method and system for testing websites”), assigned to SOFTWARE RESEARCH, INC.; US8650493B2 (“Method and system for testing websites”), assigned to SOFTWARE RESEARCH, INC.. The record also lists TestCafe - Website testing software.

How long did case 3:16-cv-00465 take?

69 calendar days, from filing on 27 Jan 2016 to closure on 5 April 2016.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:16-cv-00465?

Judge Edward M. Chen presided. Douglas Stephen Tilley is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Software Research. William Joseph Robinson appears for defendant Developer Express.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 3:16-cv-00465 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question
Next step

Go further with this record

Read how the method works, run it on your own product, then size the next step.

  • 01 / How-toUsing patent search for competitive intelligenceRead a rival's filings to see where its products are going.GuideRead
  • 02 / AI agentFTO ReportCheck whether your own product could read on these claims.Patsnap EurekaRun it
  • 03 / Free toolAI prior art searchDescribe an idea, get the closest patents.AI resultTry tool

More next stepsHow to run a freedom-to-operate analysis

Browse related dockets
Cases in N.D. Cal. Cases on electric digital data processing All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:16-cv-00465 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.

Patent figures. Any patent drawings shown are reproduced from the identified patent publications to illustrate the cited documents, and do not establish the scope, validity or enforceability of any patent.

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.