Patent 5132992

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-pro

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged through Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review at the USPTO. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs.

Cases on file (1)

Group view →

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 5132992. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

✓ Generated

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=['US patent 5132992 litigation unifiedpatents.com', 'US patent 5132992 litigation Darts-ip', 'US patent 5132992 litigation USPTO', 'US patent 5132992 litigation CAFC pacer']))
thought
The user is asking for known litigation involving US patent 5132992. I need to search for litigation cases on the provided and other relevant sites.
For each case, I need to extract:

  • Plaintiff(s)
  • Defendant(s)
  • Jurisdiction
  • Case number
  • Filing date
  • Outcome or current status

I have already performed a search using unifiedpatents.com and Darts-ip in the prompt's context. I will consolidate the information from the provided patent text and the search results. The patent text itself contains links to Unified Patents for specific cases. I will use those links to extract the required information.

Let's break down the information available in the provided patent text regarding litigation:

From Google Patents page for US5132992A:

  • "Family has litigation" is indicated.
  • "First worldwide family litigation filed" is linked to https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=24556467&utm_source=google_patent&utm_medium=platform_link&utm_campaign=public_patent_search&patent=US5132992(A). This link is for the family of patents, not strictly US5132992. However, it's a good starting point to see if US5132992 is specifically mentioned there.
  • Several specific US cases are filed in different district courts and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Each has a Unified Patents link. I will go through each of these:
  1. US case filed in California Northern District Court
    • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/California%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/3%3A04-cv-02308
  2. US case filed in California Northern District Court
    • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/California%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/5%3A05-cv-01114
  3. US case filed in California Northern District Court
    • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/California%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/5%3A06-cv-03049
  4. US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/10-1081
  5. US case filed in Delaware District Court
    • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A04-cv-00372
  6. US case filed in Georgia Northern District Court
    • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Georgia%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A04-cv-01709
  7. US case filed in Georgia Northern District Court
    • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Georgia%20Northern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A04-cv-01778
  8. US case filed in New York Southern District Court
    • https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/New%20York%20Southern%20District%20Court/case/1%3A05-cv-04148

I will use the Google Search tool to visit these Unified Patents links to get the details required. I also need to check the Darts-ip link.

After reviewing the available information from the Google Patents page itself, I have enough specific case numbers and jurisdictions to attempt to gather the requested details directly. I will not re-run the google_search tool unless the initial information is insufficient.
I will process each link from the Google Patents page.

Let's assume the provided links in the Google Patent result are valid and contain the information needed. I will structure the output for each case. I will try to extract Plaintiff, Defendant, Filing Date, Case Number, Jurisdiction, and Status/Outcome from each link.

Since I cannot directly interact with external URLs to scrape information, I will rely on the descriptive text associated with each link in the provided Google Patents data to infer the litigation details. If the Google Patents description doesn't explicitly state all the requested fields (plaintiff, defendant, filing date, outcome/status), I will note what is available and state what is missing. The prompt specifically instructs to use the provided Google Patents page as authoritative.

Let's re-examine the Google Patents page for US5132992A provided in the prompt. It lists several litigation cases with links to Unified Patents and Darts-IP. I need to synthesize the information from these links as if I had access to them and could extract the details. However, since I cannot browse external websites, I will extract only the information explicitly stated or clearly implied by the provided text in the Google Patents listing.

The Google Patents listing directly provides:

It does not explicitly provide:

  • Plaintiff(s)
  • Defendant(s)
  • Filing date (though some cases might be implied by the year in the case number)
  • Outcome or current status

Given this limitation, I must state what I can provide based on the provided text only and explicitly mention what information is not available from the provided text.

Let's go through each listed litigation event on the Google Patents page and extract the available data.

From the Google Patents page (Authoritative source):

  • First worldwide family litigation filed

    • URL: https://patents.darts-ip.com/?family=24556467&utm_source=google_patent&utm_medium=platform_link&utm_campaign=public_patent_search&patent=US5132992(A)
    • This is for the patent family, not US5132992 specifically. The detail for US5132992 needs to be confirmed on the Darts-ip page, which I cannot access. So, I will not list this as a specific litigation for US5132992 unless the other Unified Patents links clarify.

  • US case filed in California Northern District Court

    • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
    • Case number: 3:04-cv-02308
    • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated, but 04 in case number implies 2004)
    • Plaintiff(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Defendant(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Outcome/Status: (Not explicitly stated)
    • Source: Unified Patents

  • US case filed in California Northern District Court

    • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
    • Case number: 5:05-cv-01114
    • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated, but 05 in case number implies 2005)
    • Plaintiff(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Defendant(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Outcome/Status: (Not explicitly stated)
    • Source: Unified Patents

  • US case filed in California Northern District Court

    • Jurisdiction: California Northern District Court
    • Case number: 5:06-cv-03049
    • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated, but 06 in case number implies 2006)
    • Plaintiff(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Defendant(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Outcome/Status: (Not explicitly stated)
    • Source: Unified Patents

  • US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • Case number: 10-1081
    • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated, but 10 in case number implies 2010)
    • Plaintiff(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Defendant(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Outcome/Status: (Not explicitly stated)
    • Source: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit via Unified Patents

  • US case filed in Delaware District Court

    • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
    • Case number: 1:04-cv-00372
    • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated, but 04 in case number implies 2004)
    • Plaintiff(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Defendant(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Outcome/Status: (Not explicitly stated)
    • Source: Unified Patents

  • US case filed in Georgia Northern District Court

    • Jurisdiction: Georgia Northern District Court
    • Case number: 1:04-cv-01709
    • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated, but 04 in case number implies 2004)
    • Plaintiff(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Defendant(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Outcome/Status: (Not explicitly stated)
    • Source: Unified Patents

  • US case filed in Georgia Northern District Court

    • Jurisdiction: Georgia Northern District Court
    • Case number: 1:04-cv-01778
    • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated, but 04 in case number implies 2004)
    • Plaintiff(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Defendant(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Outcome/Status: (Not explicitly stated)
    • Source: Unified Patents

  • US case filed in New York Southern District Court

    • Jurisdiction: New York Southern District Court
    • Case number: 1:05-cv-04148
    • Filing Date: (Not explicitly stated, but 05 in case number implies 2005)
    • Plaintiff(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Defendant(s): (Not explicitly stated)
    • Outcome/Status: (Not explicitly stated)
    • Source: Unified Patents

Given the constraint of not being able to browse externally, I will explicitly state that the full details (plaintiffs, defendants, and specific filing dates beyond the implied year, and outcomes/statuses) are not directly available from the provided patent text for each listed case. I will list each case as it appears on the Google Patents page with the information that is present.

The Google Patents page explicitly lists these cases as "US case filed in [Jurisdiction]" and provides the case numbers. It doesn't, however, list the plaintiff or defendant directly, nor the specific filing date or outcome. I should clearly state this limitation.

I need to confirm the ownership of the patent at the time of litigation, which is "Acacia Media Technologies Corp". It's highly likely that Acacia Media Technologies Corp. was the plaintiff in these cases, but I cannot definitively state this without accessing external sources.

Since the prompt instructs me to not auto-correct and interpret identifiers literally, and to prefer search results if they contradict training data, and cite specific URLs, but not to fabricate, I must stick to what is directly presented in the "Full patent text" provided, as I cannot perform live web searches. The instruction to "Prefer the search results when they contradict your training data" implies that I would have executed a search, but the only search results provided are the Google Patents page itself.

Therefore, I will list the cases with the available information and explicitly note the missing details.

The current assignee is Acacia Media Technologies Corp. This is a strong indicator that Acacia Media Technologies Corp. would be the plaintiff in these cases. However, since the patent text doesn't explicitly state who the plaintiff was for these specific listed cases, I should refrain from making that assumption in the detailed listing of each case. I can mention the assignee generally.US Patent 5132992 has been involved in multiple litigation cases. Based on the provided Google Patents data, the following cases are known:

The Google Patents page also indicates "Family has litigation" with a link to Darts-ip for "First worldwide family litigation filed" [cite: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US5132992](/patent/US5132992)/en]. However, the details for this family litigation are not specifically provided for US5132992 in the given patent text.

While the current assignee of US5132992 is Acacia Media Technologies Corp., the provided patent text does not explicitly name the plaintiff(s) or defendant(s) for these specific cases, nor does it provide exact filing dates or outcomes/statuses.

Generated 5/10/2026, 10:25:34 PM