Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches.

Let me dig into the specific case docket and the patent's litigation history.

Case Overview and Background: US 7,840,619 Litigation (D. Del. 1:13-cv-00348)

Verification caveat up front. I was unable to confirm, through the searches available, that a case captioned 1:13-cv-00348 in the District of Delaware asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,840,619, nor could I identify the parties named in that 2013 docket entry. The only source tying the '619 patent to this docket is the Google Patents "family litigation" record (Unified Patents data) referenced in the prior summary, and that record does not supply a caption, filing date, or outcome. Treat the 2013 Delaware case details below as unverified; by contrast, the patent's well-documented assertion campaign — eHierarchy, LLC v. [Microsoft Corp.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Microsoft%20Corp.), No. 2:16-cv-00564 (E.D. Tex.) — is corroborated by multiple independent sources (RPX, Stanford NPE Database, CourtListener/RPX docket documents, and the complaint itself). I flag each claim accordingly rather than filling gaps with speculation.

Parties and what they do. The '619 patent's documented plaintiff is eHierarchy, LLC, a patent-assertion entity (the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies it as holding "acquired patents," and RPX described the campaign as one against "data access and display patents that issued to their named inventor, an apparent, one-time Microsoft employee"). eHierarchy is thus best characterized as an NPE/PAE monetizing inventor-originated patents rather than an operating company, a university, or a licensee. The documented defendant is Microsoft Corporation, an operating company and the accused infringer; eHierarchy later filed similar complaints against QNAP Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2:19-cv-01264, filed Feb. 20, 2019) and Tumblr, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1:20-cv-00886, filed Jan. 31, 2020), confirming a serial-assertion pattern across consumer-electronics, storage, and social-media targets. Whether the 2013 Delaware plaintiff was eHierarchy, an inventor/small entity, or a predecessor owner cannot be confirmed from the sources retrieved.

Accused technology and the patent's technical scope. The '619 patent, "Computer system for automatic organization, indexing and viewing of information from multiple sources" (issued Nov. 23, 2010; App. No. 11/903,304, filed Sept. 21, 2007), claims a computer data-processing system whose "integrated computer control software system" manages data objects via an object-oriented database plus a metadata database that stores only one instance of each object and links it to multiple collections/domains through unique metadata links, with features including a "sticky path" object-hierarchy viewer, key-phrase linking, and drag-and-drop relationship-link creation. In the Microsoft case it was asserted as Count III (the complaint also asserted the '063 patent as Count I/II and listed four patents-in-suit, per RPX), and the accused products included Microsoft's consumer-hardware/software offerings such as the Surface line (the complaint cites microsoft.com/surface). One-line sketch: a metadata-driven, single-instance object database that auto-organizes and cross-references files/data across disparate sources. The specific accused products in the unverified 2013 Delaware action are unknown.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. The verified procedural history is the E.D. Tex. action before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne), filed May 25, 2016 and closed June 29, 2016 — a notably short ~36-day life that suggests early settlement or transfer/dismissal rather than a merits trial. Venue mattered because E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division) was, in the mid-2010s, the preferred forum for NPE campaigns (plaintiff-friendly juries, fast dockets), and D. Del. — where the 2013 case is docketed — is the default forum for corporate-defendant patent suits and, separately, the locus of much parallel IPR/PTAB activity. I found no IPR or other PTAB proceeding challenging the '619 patent in the sources reviewed, so any IPR linkage for this patent is unconfirmed; the closest related art is a 2016 Microsoft complaint referencing the patent's inventor's Microsoft employment, which is relevant to inventorship/ownership rather than validity. Industry significance: the case illustrates the classic NPE pattern of an inventor's patent (with ties to a large operating company) being assigned to a monetization entity and asserted in high-volume plaintiff venues, with the accused goods spanning consumer electronics, networked storage, and web platforms — a reminder that the '619 patent's broad "organize, index, and view from multiple sources" claims map onto ubiquitous search/file-management/UI functionality. Market context and outcome (settlement amounts, licenses, or dismissals) for either the 2013 Delaware action or the eHierarchy campaign are not well sourced in what I could retrieve and should be verified against PACER (D. Del. 1:13-cv-00348; E.D. Tex. 2:16-cv-00564), Docket Alarm/RPX Insight, and the assignment record at the USPTO before being relied upon.

Bottom line: the '619 patent is a broad, inventor-originated software/UI patent monetized by an NPE (eHierarchy) against large operating companies, but the specific 2013 Delaware docket (1:13-cv-00348) remains unverified as to caption, accused products, judge, and disposition — I recommend pulling the PACER docket directly rather than treating the Unified Patents/Google Patents family record as authoritative on those points.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with the docket and patent.

I was cut off from further searches mid-investigation, so I want to be explicit about what I verified versus what remains an open question. Bluntly: the D. Del. case number in the metadata does not line up with any litigation I could confirm on US 7,840,619, and I could not verify a single docket event for a case captioned "1:13-cv-00348 (D. Del.)." Here is what the record actually supports.

1. The patent (verified)

Note: the '619 patent is cited as prior art by US 9,633,064 ("Systems and methods of unified reconstruction in storage systems"), which the citation table also attributes to a "Horn." I have not confirmed whether that is the same inventor or a coincidence, and I did not confirm assignee history or any reissue/reexam.

2. Litigation actually on record for the '619 patent (verified, but not your case)

The Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for patent 7,840,619 lists exactly one case:

• eHierarchy, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2:16-cv-00564 (E.D. Tex.) — plaintiff categorized as an NPE asserting "Acquired patents." (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/7840619)

That is a 2016 Eastern District of Texas case against Microsoft — not a 2013 Delaware case. I could not verify its outcome (dismissal, transfer to W.D. Wash., settlement, or judgment) before my search budget ran out, so I will not characterize it.

3. The case as given in the metadata — chronology could not be built

I ran targeted searches on the docket number and on the patent plus "Delaware / 2013 / complaint" and could not surface a complaint, answer, counterclaim, motion, Markman order, verdict, or judgment for a D. Del. action numbered 1:13-cv-00348 involving the '619 patent. Requested checkpoints and their status:

• Filing & pleadings (complaint, answer, counterclaims) — Not verified. No caption, parties, or filing date recovered.
• Pre-trial motions (MTD, transfer, IPR stay, summary judgment) — Not verified; none located.
• Markman/claim construction — Not verified; no opinion located.
• Discovery milestones — Not verified.
• Trial / verdict / JMOL / new trial / fees — Not verified; no trial or judgment located.
• Final disposition / appeal — Not verified. Federal Circuit docket check returned nothing linking this number to the '619 patent.
• Parallel PTAB proceedings — No IPR, PGR, or CBM on US 7,840,619 was found. This is a negative search result only, not proof of absence; the '619 patent issued in 2010 and would have been IPR-eligible from 2012-09-16 onward, so a challenge is at least plausible and should be checked directly in PTAB's API/P-TACTS.

One concrete source of confusion worth flagging: a search for the literal string "1:13-cv-00348" returns Reber v. Trident Systems, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00348 (E.D. Va.) — a different court (Eastern District of Virginia) with a Memorandum Opinion dated 2015-03-17 (D. Judge Liam O'Grady). If the metadata was pulled from a litigation aggregator (Unified Patents / Google Patents family-litigation feed), a mismatched docket number or court attribute of this kind is a common artifact. This is a hypothesis, not a verified explanation.

4. Honest bottom line

I cannot write the chronological litigation history you asked for, because I could not confirm that the D. Del. 1:13-cv-00348 case exists as a '619-patent suit at all, let alone recover its docket events. The only confirmed '619 litigation is eHierarchy v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex. 2016). Anything beyond that would be fabrication.

5. What would resolve this (next steps)

1. PACER / CourtListener RECAP docket for D. Del. 1:13-cv-00348 — pull the caption, complaint, and docket sheet directly; confirm the patent-in-suit is 7,840,619.
2. Google Patents "Litigation" tab for US 7,840,619 — screenshot the exact case entry to see whether the court/number attributes match what was passed to me.
3. Unified Patents Portal — pull the underlying litigation record for the '619 patent family (the aggregator that evidently seeded the metadata).
4. PTAB P-TACTS / API search by patent number 7,840,619 for any IPR/PGR/CBM.
5. Federal Circuit docket for any appeal arising from the confirmed district court case.

If you can share the caption or the parties, I can re-run the docket research immediately and build the full chronological section on a verified footing.

I'll research this case and its counsel.

Bottom line on the request

I could not verify the plaintiff's identity, much less the counsel of record, for D. Del. No. 1:13-cv-00348 (patent 7,840,619) with the sources I was able to reach in this session. Rather than name attorneys I cannot source, I'm reporting exactly what I confirmed, what conflicts, and what remains unverified.

What I confirmed

• The patent's family is associated with eHierarchy, LLC. US 7,840,619 ("Computer System For Automatic Organization, Indexing and Viewing of Information From Multiple Sources," issued Nov. 23, 2010) was asserted by eHierarchy, LLC (Plano, Texas — 1400 Preston Road, Suite 400) alongside US 8,280,932 in its E.D. Tex. campaigns, e.g., eHierarchy, LLC v. BlackBerry Corp., No. 2:17-cv-00225 (E.D. Tex.) and eHierarchy, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:16-cv-00564 (E.D. Tex.) (Stanford NPE Litigation Database, patent 7840619; complaint text via RPX Insight).
• The '619 patent was previously asserted in a Delaware action per the Google Patents/Unified Patents litigation record you cited — but that record does not identify the parties, filing date, or outcome, and I could not independently corroborate a D. Del. filing at No. 1:13-cv-00348 naming eHierarchy.
• Timing caveat: the eHierarchy suits of record appear to be 2016–2017 E.D. Tex. filings; a 2013 D. Del. suit on the same patent would predate them and could well involve a different plaintiff (an earlier assignee/owner) — I could not establish the chain of title for 2013.

Counsel of record — status

• D. Del. 1:13-cv-00348: not verified. No docket sheet, complaint signature block, Rule 7.1 disclosure, or pro hac vice order for this case number was retrievable in my searches. The searches returned unrelated matters that merely share the number in other districts (e.g., CpuMate v. Cooler Master, E.D. Tex. 2:13-cv-00348; City of Bristol Pension Fund v. Reid, D. Colo. 1:13-cv-00348; JPMorgan Chase v. Argus, D. Del. 1:24-cv-00348).
• I cannot and will not name lead counsel, local counsel, of counsel, or in-house counsel for this case on this record. Naming a Delaware firm or an eHierarchy-side lawyer from the E.D. Tex. matters would be an unsourced inference about a different docket and a different (possibly differently represented) plaintiff.

How to resolve this reliably (the filings that would answer it)

Docket records that would definitively identify counsel, if the case is accessible on PACER:

If the filings are sealed or the case was terminated early with minimal docket activity (a real possibility for a 2013 single-patent suit that may have settled or been voluntarily dismissed), counsel may never have entered a formal appearance beyond the complaint, and no PACER-visible counsel list would exist.

Recommended next step

Tell me the plaintiff's name (or let me pull PACER/Unified Patents directly if you can enable additional access), and I'll run the signature blocks and appearance entries. Alternatively, if you intended the eHierarchy line of cases, I can retrieve the counsel of record for the E.D. Tex. actions — that I can source — and clearly label it as arising from those dockets, not from 1:13-cv-00348.

I'll research the docket for this 2013 Delaware case to identify defense counsel.

Key lead: the '619 patent appears in a D. Del. case, Technology Innovations Associates LLC v. Google, Inc. Let me verify the docket number and find defense counsel.

Counsel of Record for Defendant(s) — Research Status

Important sourcing note: This section is necessarily preliminary. I hit my research-step limit before I could pull the actual PACER docket sheet for this case, and the searches I ran did not surface an answer, corporate disclosure, or motion/appearance listing defense counsel of record. Below I set out (1) a material correction/refinement to the prior section's "unverified" framing, (2) the one piece of counsel information I could verify (and why it is the plaintiff's side, not the defendant's), and (3) exactly what still needs to be pulled. I have not named any defense attorney for this case, because I could not source one.

---

1. The case number in the metadata appears to be off by a few digits — flag

The prior section treated D. Del. 1:13-cv-00348 as unverified. My searches indicate the '619 patent was in fact asserted in D. Del. in March 2013 by Technology Innovations Associates LLC — but in C.A. No. 13-0355-LPS (Technology Innovations Associates LLC v. Google, Inc.), assigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark, not 13-348:

• The court's own opinion page lists Technology Innovations Associates v. Google, Inc., Case 13-0355, Judge Leonard P. Stark, dated 08/07/2014 (D. Del. website: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/opinion/technology-innovations-associates-v-google-inc; opinion PDF at https://www-ded.qa.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/13-0355.pdf).
• The Aug. 7, 2014 opinion is a Markman ruling construing "sticky path" in Claim 1 of the '619 patent and claims of U.S. 8,280,932 — i.e., the same two-patent TIA assertion family.
• The complaint (filed March 2013) asserts Count One: U.S. 7,840,619 and Count Two: U.S. 8,280,932 against Google, accusing Android devices (Nexus 4, Nexus 7, Nexus 10, Galaxy Nexus) and Gmail/Contacts/Calendar (Justia docket 1:2013cv00355, Filing 1; docshare copy of the complaint).

Caveat / contradiction to flag: The case metadata I was given says 1:13-cv-00348. It is possible that 13-348 is a different, companion TIA filing from the same March 2013 wave (TIA appears to have filed a cluster of Android-related suits then), or that the Unified Patents/Google Patents family record mis-transcribed the number. I could not confirm a complaint, party list, or anything else for 13-348. Treat the "13-348" number as unverified and probably a transcription variance from 13-355 until someone pulls PACER directly. This matters for your counsel question because the two dockets would have different defendants and different defense teams.

2. Counsel information I could verify — but it is plaintiff's counsel

From the JS-44 civil cover sheet in the TIA v. Google complaint (Justia Filing 1 attachments):

These are the only attorney names tied to the '619 D. Del. litigation that I retrieved. They represent the plaintiff, not the defendant(s).

3. Defendant(s)' counsel of record — not identified

I could not locate, in the sources I reached:

• the identity of the defendant(s) in 1:13-cv-00348 (Google, Inc. is the defendant in the verified 13-0355 case; the 13-348 defendant is unknown);
• any appearance, answer, corporate disclosure statement, pro hac vice motion, or stipulation naming defense counsel;
• the signature blocks of the defense-side briefs in 13-0355 (the opinion text I retrieved quotes the briefing but not the counsel blocks).

In the mid-2010s Google typically used established Delaware patent-defense firms before Judge Stark, but I have no source tying any specific firm or attorney to this docket, so I will not name one. Per the operating rules, an unsourced name would be a fabrication.

4. What to pull to complete this section (exact steps)

1. PACER docket for D. Del. 1:13-cv-00348 and, in parallel, 1:13-cv-00355 — compare captions to resolve the number discrepancy. Docket Alarm / CourtListener-RECAP (courtlistener.com/docket/...) and RPX Insight (insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/dedce-...) may have free docket sheets.
2. In each docket, look for: the complaint's caption, any Rule 7.1 disclosure, the answer/counterclaims (defense counsel's signature block), and any motion for pro hac vice (which names out-of-state lead counsel plus Delaware local counsel).
3. Pull the Aug. 7, 2014 Markman opinion PDF (gov.uscourts.ded...13-0355.pdf) in full — D. Del. opinions typically list both sides' counsel in the signature block, which would directly answer the question.
4. Cross-check Law360 / Reuters Legal coverage of the March 2013 TIA filings, which usually names defense counsel.

Bottom line: The '619 patent's D. Del. assertion is documented as Technology Innovations Associates LLC v. Google, Inc., 13-355-LPS (Judge Stark), with Bayard, P.A. (Kirk, Brauerman) as plaintiff's counsel — but I could not verify the defendant(s) or any defense counsel for either 13-355 or the metadata's 13-348. This item should be treated as open pending a PACER pull, not as a finding.