Diagnosis & Surgery and Electric Digital Data Processing Patent litigation record

Technology 5 cases

5 cases on record in Diagnosis & Surgery and Electric Digital Data Processing. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

5 cases on record

Cases on record
5
Classification
A61B5/00 · A61B5/01 · A61B5/024 · G06F1/16 · B28B1/24 · H02J7/35 · A61B5/332 · A61B5/349 · G06V40/10 · G06V40/70 · G06V10/75 · G01P15/00 · G04G21/02 · G06F3/01 · G08B21/02 · G08C17/02 · G06F3/14 · G08B5/36 · H02J7/00 · H02S40/22 · G02B19/00 · H02S99/00 · A61B5/145 · A61B5/1455 · G06F21/32 · A61B5/0205 · A61B18/24 · G06F17/00 · G06Q30/06 · G06Q50/16 · A61B5/05 · G01N33/48 · G01N33/66 · G06F19/00 · G06Q10/00 · A61B5/1459 · A61B10/00 · A61M5/00 · G01N33/72 · A61B3/14 · G06F3/00 · A61B5/0432
Courts involved
N.D. Cal. · E.D. Wash. · D. Del. · E.D. Tex. · M.D. Fla.
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
3:24-cv-03245 Samsung Group v. Oura Health Oy N.D. Cal. 30 May 2024 354 d Judgment on the merits for Defendant
2:19-cv-00060 Collabra Technology, Inc. v. Dierks Technology, Inc. E.D. Wash. 22 Feb 2019 83 d Voluntary dismissal
1:16-cv-00746 DexCom, Inc. v. InSpark Technologies, Inc. D. Del. 24 Aug 2016 106 d Voluntary dismissal
2:14-cv-00053 Queens University at Kingston v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. E.D. Tex. 31 Jan 2014 1809 d Judgment on the Merits
6:09-cv-01909 LifeWatch Services, Inc. v. Medicomp, Inc. M.D. Fla. 6 Nov 2009 3331 d Likely Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases classified under Diagnosis & Surgery and Electric Digital Data Processing. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Where the claim space is crowded

Which patents are asserted most in this field, and which branches are still open.

Map this field
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.