Untitled case

Case Overview and Background for Unverifiable Patent Litigation

Information regarding a patent infringement litigation case numbered 6:25-cv-00417 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, involving U.S. Patent 9545775, is not readily available in public records through web searches. Searches for this specific case number in the Western District of Louisiana primarily indicate other types of civil actions, such as a lawsuit by the State of Louisiana against the U.S. Food & Drug Administration concerning mifepristone (6:25-cv-01491), not a patent matter. Cases with the exact number 6:25-cv-00417 are also found in other federal courts, addressing diverse legal issues unrelated to patent infringement, including habeas petitions, trade disputes, labor actions, and criminal forfeitures.

U.S. Patent 9545775, titled "Method and system for processing data in a virtual network environment," describes methods for managing and processing data within a virtualized network. The patent details a system that identifies data traffic, determines if it constitutes "unknown data traffic," and then executes actions such as filtering or allowing the traffic based on defined security policies.

Due to the absence of public records corroborating a patent infringement case with the provided case number (6:25-cv-00417) in the specified court (Louisiana Western District Court) involving U.S. Patent 9545775, specific details regarding the parties involved (plaintiff, defendant, their business types), the accused product, the precise procedural posture beyond the court and case number provided, or any particular notability of this patent litigation cannot be ascertained or reported at this time.

It appears there is a discrepancy in the provided case metadata. Multiple federal court dockets share the case number "6:25-cv-00417" across different districts, none of which currently align with a patent infringement lawsuit involving US Patent 9,545,775 in the Louisiana Western District Court.

Here's what public records indicate for cases with similar numbers:

• Eastern District of Texas (6:25-cv-00417): This case, Kimberly Banfield Foreman v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, was consolidated with case 6:25-cv-00281. It concerned state law claims related to a retail installment contract, not patent infringement. The court dismissed both consolidated cases with prejudice for failure to state a claim on November 18, 2025.
• Middle District of Florida (6:2025cv00417): This case, Duncan v. Gulf States Contractor Services, Inc., is a personal injury diversity case filed on March 11, 2025.
• Eastern District of Oklahoma (6:25-cv-00417): This case, Baugh et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et al, involves an insurance contract dispute, filed on November 14, 2025, and terminated on March 20, 2026.
• Colorado District Court (1:25-cv-00417): Dillon Companies, LLC v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union was filed on February 7, 2025, and records mention a stipulation of dismissal.
• Other Districts: Similar case numbers appear in the District of Minnesota (0:26-cv-00417, a habeas petition), Central District of California (8:25-cv-00417, related to TCPA litigation), and District of New Mexico (2:2025cv00417).

Searches for US Patent 9,545,775 in conjunction with PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) proceedings did not reveal any active or concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) challenges.

Given the information available through public court records, the specified case number 6:25-cv-00417 in the Louisiana Western District Court does not appear to be associated with patent infringement litigation involving US Patent 9,545,775. The provided case details seem to be either incorrect or refer to a case that is not publicly identifiable as patent litigation under that specific combination of court and patent. Therefore, no key legal developments or outcomes for a patent infringement litigation matching these criteria can be reported.

Based on extensive web searches against public dockets, firm websites, and legal news sources, I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in case number 6:25-cv-00417 in the Louisiana Western District Court, specifically tied to patent 9545775.

My searches for the specified case number in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana did not yield a patent infringement case involving US Patent 9545775. Publicly available information for cases with the number 6:25-cv-00417 in other districts (e.g., Oklahoma Eastern, District of Minnesota, District of Delaware) indicates different types of litigation, such as insurance disputes or civil rights matters.

Furthermore, direct searches for "US patent 9545775 litigation Louisiana Western District Court" or related terms did not bring up a case matching the provided case number and court. While general listings of intellectual property cases in the Western District of Louisiana are available, they do not specifically mention this patent or case number as of the current date.

Therefore, without access to PACER or more specific information that directly links case 6:25-cv-00417 in the Louisiana Western District Court to a patent infringement dispute involving US patent 9545775, I cannot identify the plaintiff's counsel. It is possible that the filing is sealed, the case details in the prompt are not publicly indexed in the searched databases, or the information provided might require direct PACER access to verify.

The initial search for case number 6:25-cv-00417 in the Louisiana Western District Court returned multiple unrelated cases from different districts, which is a common issue when a case number format is reused across federal courts. The provided context states "Louisiana Western District Court" but the search results show cases with 6:25-cv-00417 in the Middle District of Florida, the Eastern District of Texas, and the Eastern District of Oklahoma. One result also mentions a case with "0:26-cv-00417" in the District of Minnesota.

Crucially, none of these cases are identified as patent infringement cases, nor do they mention patent 9545775. The cases found are related to personal injury, retail installment contracts, and insurance disputes.

The existing case summary explicitly states this is a "patent infringement case identified as involving US patent 9545775." My searches for patent 9545775 and "Universal Secure Registry LLC" (a known plaintiff in patent litigation involving similar patents) show patent infringement cases, but none with the exact case number 6:25-cv-00417 in the Louisiana Western District Court. Past litigation for Universal Secure Registry LLC regarding similar patents involved Apple and Visa, heard in the District of Delaware and appealed to the Federal Circuit. Finnegan represented Universal Secure Registry LLC in at least one such case.

Given the conflicting information:

• The case number 6:25-cv-00417, when searched, consistently points to non-patent cases in other districts.
• The patent 9545775 is associated with patent infringement, but not with this specific case number or court.

It appears there might be a discrepancy in the provided case metadata (case number/court vs. patent-at-issue/case type). Without a definitive patent infringement case matching "6:25-cv-00417 Louisiana Western District Court," I cannot identify the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in such a case. I cannot find any defendant or their counsel for a patent infringement case with the given case number and court.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant(s):

Based on available public records, it is not possible to identify the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in a patent infringement case with case number 6:25-cv-00417 in the Louisiana Western District Court concerning US patent 9545775. Web searches for this specific case number predominantly return unrelated civil cases (e.g., personal injury, contract disputes) in other federal districts, none of which involve patent infringement or the specified patent. No patent infringement case matching this exact case number and court has been found in the Louisiana Western District Court. Therefore, the defendant(s) and their counsel in a patent infringement case with this specific identifier have not been identified.