This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 08/09/2021 at 08:39:04 (UTC).

UberFan, LLC v. Snap, Inc.

Case Summary

On June 10, 2021, UberFan, LLC (“UberFan'' or “Plaintiff”), represented by Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Snap, Inc. (“Snap” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory and compensatory relief, among other reliefs for the alleged infringement of the patented technology relating to Event-related media management system. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Delaware. 

The Plaintiff filed the complaint for the Defendant’s alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,477,744 (the ’744 Patent), 9,727,634 (the’634 Patent), 10,740,305 (the ’305 Patent), and 10,963,439 (the ’439 Patent), each entitled “Event-Related Media Management System”, (collectively the “Asserted Patents”).

In its complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that “Snap has infringed and continues to infringe, literally and/or by the doctrine of equivalents, individually and/or jointly, at least Claim 1 of the ’744 Patent, ’634 Patent and ’305 Patent and Claim 10 of the ’439 Patent by making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States Accused Instrumentalities covered by the ’744 Patent. Accused Instrumentalities for direct infringement (and for underlying acts of direct infringement for indirect infringement claims) include the Snapchat application and its supporting infrastructure, which is an Event-Related Media Management System. Accused Instrumentalities also include methods performed by or for Snap, and methods performed by or for end-users of the Snapchat application.”

The Plaintiff further alleged that “In addition, Snap has been and is now contributing to infringement of the Asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by selling components of an infringing system, which are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing uses. For example, Snapchat’s application is a product, method, process, service and/or system which provides contextualized media content in such a way that it contributes to the infringement of at least Claim 1 of the ’744 Patent, ’634 Patent and ’305 Patent and at least Claim 10 of the ’439 Patent.”

The Plaintiff lists out four claims for relief. Each claim is for the alleged infringement of ‘744 Patent, ‘634 Patent, ’305 Patent and ’439 Patent, respectively, wherein the Plaintiff claimed that, Snap has been and is now indirectly infringing the Asserted Patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) at least by actively inducing its customers to directly infringe the ’744 Patent at least by using Snapchat’s application and has known and/or been willfully blind that its actions would lead to infringement.

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court to adjudicate that Snap is liable for infringing the Asserted Patents and Snap shall pay damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for Snap’s infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and shall be subject to an accounting for infringement not presented at trial. Plaintiff further requested the Court to award additional damages for any such infringement; award enhanced damages for willful infringement and find this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award Plaintiff their costs of litigation. 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.




Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:21-CV-00842

  • Filing Date:

    06/10/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Maryellen Noreika

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

UberFan, LLC

Defendant

Snap, Inc.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Brian E. Farnan

Attorney at Farnan LLP

919 North Market Street, 12Th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19801

Michael J. Farnan

Attorney at Farnan LLP

919 North Market Street, 12Th Floor

Wilmington, DE 19801

Howard N. Wisnia

Karl Rupp

Nicholas A. Wyss

Defendant Attorneys

Karen Jacobs

Attorney at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

1201 North Market Street, P.O. Box 1347

Wilmington, DE 19899

Andrew Mark Moshos

Attorney at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

1201 North Market Street, P.O. Box 1347

Wilmington, DE 19899

 

Court Documents

#10

#9

#8

#7

#6

#5

#4

#3

#2

1 #9

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #8

Exhibit H

1 #7

Exhibit G

1 #5

Exhibit E

1 #4

Exhibit D

1 #3

Exhibit C

1 #2

Exhibit B

1 #1

Exhibit A

#1

8 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/29/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • DocketSO ORDERED re #10 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Steven Schortgen, Jennifer Klein Ayers, Daniel Yannuzzi, Jesse Salen, and Dominique Combs filed by Snap, Inc. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 6/29/2021. (dlw) (Entered: 06/29/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/28/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#10) MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Steven Schortgen, Jennifer Klein Ayers, Daniel Yannuzzi, Jesse Salen, and Dominique Combs - filed by Snap, Inc.. (Moshos, Andrew) (Entered: 06/28/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/25/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • DocketSO ORDERED re #9 Joint STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the Complaint to August 16, 2021 (Set/Reset Answer Deadlines: Snap, Inc. answer due 8/16/2021). ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 6/25/2021. (dlw) (Entered: 06/25/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/24/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#9) Joint STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME to ANSWER the Complaint to August 16, 2021 - filed by Snap, Inc.. (Jacobs, Karen) (Entered: 06/24/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2021

  • DocketPro Hac Vice Attorney Karl Rupp and Nicholas A. Wyss for UberFan, LLC added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (mal) (Entered: 06/17/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/17/2021

  • DocketPro Hac Vice Attorney Howard N. Wisnia for UberFan, LLC added for electronic noticing. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.5 (d)., Delaware counsel shall be the registered users of CM/ECF and shall be required to file all papers. (mal) (Entered: 06/17/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • DocketSO ORDERED re #7 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Howard Wisnia, #8 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Karl Rupp and Nicholas A. Wyss filed by UberFan, LLC. ORDERED by Judge Maryellen Noreika on 6/16/2021. (dlw) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#8) MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Karl Rupp and Nicholas A. Wyss - filed by UberFan, LLC. (Farnan, Michael) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#7) MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Howard Wisnia - filed by UberFan, LLC. (Farnan, Michael) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/16/2021

  • DocketCase Assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Please include the initials of the Judge (MN) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb) (Entered: 06/16/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#6) SUMMONS Returned Executed by UberFan, LLC. Snap, Inc. served on 6/10/2021, answer due 7/1/2021. (Farnan, Michael) (Entered: 06/10/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#5) Summonses Issued (please complete the top portion of the form and print out for use/service). (apk) (Entered: 06/10/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#4) Disclosure Statement pursuant to Rule 7.1: No Parents or Affiliates Listed filed by UberFan, LLC. (apk) (Entered: 06/10/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#3) Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) US 9,477,744 B2 ;US 9,727,634 B2 ;US 10,740,305 B2 ;US 10,963,439 B1. (apk) (Entered: 06/10/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#2) Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (apk) (Entered: 06/10/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • View Court Documents

  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT filed with Jury Demand against Snap, Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3633084.) - filed by UberFan, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Civil Cover Sheet)(apk) (Entered: 06/10/2021)

    [+] Read More [-] Read Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases where SNAP INC. is a litigant

Sanderling Management Ltd. v. Snap Inc.

U.S. Courts Of Appeals | Other | 23-1330 | 2023-01-05

Sanderling Management Ltd. v. Snap Inc.

U.S. Courts Of Appeals | Other | 23-1331 | 2023-01-05

Sanderling Management Ltd. v. Snap Inc.

U.S. Courts Of Appeals | Other | 23-1332 | 2023-01-05

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Andrew Mark Moshos

DataCloud Technologies, LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies Inc. et al

U.S. District Courts | Intellectual Property | 1:21-CV-00837 | 2021-06-08

Realm Licensing LLC v. Asana, Inc.

U.S. District Courts | Intellectual Property | 1:21-CV-00485 | 2021-03-31

Coretek Licensing LLC v. Discord Inc.

U.S. District Courts | Intellectual Property | 1:21-CV-00304 | 2021-02-26

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Karen Jacobs

Amgen Inc. et al v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al

U.S. District Courts | Intellectual Property | 1:23-CV-00031 | 2023-01-12

Biogen Inc. et al v. Sandoz Inc. et al

U.S. District Courts | Intellectual Property | 1:22-CV-01190 | 2022-09-09

NEC Corporation v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.

U.S. District Courts | Intellectual Property | 1:22-CV-00987 | 2022-07-28

Why is this public record being published online?

UniCourt uses cookies to improve your online experience, for more information please see our Privacy Policy. By continuing to use this website, you agree to UniCourt’s General Disclaimer, Terms of Service, Cancellation and Refund Policy, Privacy Policy, and Public Records Policy. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not use our website and/or services.