Attentive Mobile Inc

General

Total Cases5

Active Cases2

Patents8

CourtsD. Delaware

TypeOperating Company

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

L3

A

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
11/04/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Strike New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish (“Motion”), (D.I. [403] ), hereby ORDERS that the Court will plan to resolve the Motion on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the Motion, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, [https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf]. If either of those circumstances occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the Motion in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/4/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/04/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Defendant’s Motion to Strike New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish (“Motion”), (D.I. [403] ), hereby ORDERS that the Court will plan to resolve the Motion on the papers, unless: (a) it determines after reviewing the briefing that oral argument is needed; or (b) any party advises the Court in advance that, were argument to be set, a newer attorney will argue the Motion, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, [https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf]. If either of those circumstances occurs, then the Court will schedule oral argument on the Motion in the future. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/4/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/04/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. [374] ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [352] ; D.I. [365] ; D.I. [372] ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With regard to issue # 1, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED, in that Defendant shall produce, for its 25 top customers by revenue, (D.I. [365] at 1), “[business intelligence] reports on an individual merchant basis regarding the number of subscribers that enrolled for promotional messages via certain broad categories of opt-in methods[,]” (D.I. [352] , ex. 1 at 2), and shall do so by no later than 7 days from today’s date. Plaintiff explained why such discovery can be relevant to its infringement allegations, (D.I. [352] at 1), and Defendant has noted how it is possible for it to produce such documents, (D.I. [352] , ex. 1 at 2). To the extent that the discovery leaves it still somewhat unclear how many of the enrollments relate to the accused two-touch technology, that is a problem for Plaintiff to attempt to surmount on another day.; (2) With regard to issue #2, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request appears to relate to an assertion that third-party providers do something that in turn relates to Defendant’s customers’ opt-in decisions. (D.I. [352] at 1-2) Both the Court and Defendant do not understand how this states a theory that Defendant is guilty of infringement, nor how such a theory was previously disclosed sufficiently in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions. (D.I. [365] at 1-2) And Plaintiff never really well explained the answer to either of those two questions. (D.I. [372] at 1); and (3) With regard to issue #3, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED, and Defendant shall produce the documents at issue no later than 7 days from today’s date. Plaintiff explained how the materials are relevant to rebut a defense of Defendant, (D.I. [352] at 2), and Defendant’s response mainly focused on its own request for documents, (D.I. [365] at 2), which is not at issue here. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/4/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/04/2024) ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s discovery dispute motion (“Motion”), (D.I. [374] ), and the briefing related thereto, (D.I. [352] ; D.I. [365] ; D.I. [372] ), hereby ORDERS as follows: (1) With regard to issue # 1, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED, in that Defendant shall produce, for its 25 top customers by revenue, (D.I. [365] at 1), “[business intelligence] reports on an individual merchant basis regarding the number of subscribers that enrolled for promotional messages via certain broad categories of opt-in methods[,]” (D.I. [352] , ex. 1 at 2), and shall do so by no later than 7 days from today’s date. Plaintiff explained why such discovery can be relevant to its infringement allegations, (D.I. [352] at 1), and Defendant has noted how it is possible for it to produce such documents, (D.I. [352] , ex. 1 at 2). To the extent that the discovery leaves it still somewhat unclear how many of the enrollments relate to the accused two-touch technology, that is a problem for Plaintiff to attempt to surmount on another day.; (2) With regard to issue #2, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Plaintiff’s request appears to relate to an assertion that third-party providers do something that in turn relates to Defendant’s customers’ opt-in decisions. (D.I. [352] at 1-2) Both the Court and Defendant do not understand how this states a theory that Defendant is guilty of infringement, nor how such a theory was previously disclosed sufficiently in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions. (D.I. [365] at 1-2) And Plaintiff never really well explained the answer to either of those two questions. (D.I. [372] at 1); and (3) With regard to issue #3, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED, and Defendant shall produce the documents at issue no later than 7 days from today’s date. Plaintiff explained how the materials are relevant to rebut a defense of Defendant, (D.I. [352] at 2), and Defendant’s response mainly focused on its own request for documents, (D.I. [365] at 2), which is not at issue here. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/4/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/04/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] DECLARATION re [427] MOTION to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/ Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish of Bethany Bengfort by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit A-L, # [2] Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/04/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding In Support of - re [427] MOTION to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/ Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish. (Attachments: # [1] Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/04/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	MOTION to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Rebuttal Reports of David Kennedy/ Larry Tedesco and Nathaniel Polish - filed by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Text of Proposed Order, # [2] Rule 7.1.1. Certification)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/04/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	MOTION to Strike New Opinions in the Invalidity Report of Barbara Frederiksen (see D.I. 420) - filed by Attentive Mobile Inc.. (Flynn, Michael) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/04/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	ORAL ORDER: The Court hereby ORDERS that by no later than November 4, 2024, Plaintiff shall file, with respect to its Motion to Strike Portions of Postscript's Opening Invalidity Report, (see opening letter brief at D.I. [420] ): (1) a separate Motion; (2) a Rule 7.1.1. Statement; and (3) a proposed Order. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 11/4/2024. (smg) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/04/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] DECLARATION re [423] Letter, of Raghav Krishnapriyan by Stodge Inc.. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit H, # [2] Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/04/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	[SEALED] Letter to The Honorable Christopher J. Burke from Daniel M. Silver, Esq. regarding Reply In Support of Motion to Strike Certain New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish - re [403] MOTION to Strike New Opinions in the Infringement Report of Nathaniel Polish. (Attachments: # [1] Certificate of Service)(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)
11/04/24	Attentive Mobile Inc v. Stodge Inc 1:23-CV-00087 ( D. DE )	Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for David Carter. ( re [421] MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney David Carter )( Payment of $ 50, receipt number ADEDC-4539266).(Silver, Daniel) (Entered: 11/04/2024)