Patent 7603382
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-flash
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 (8)
Group view →Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 7603382. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
- Google LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCfiled Dec 2, 20203:20-cv-08491California Northern District Courtterminated Dec 3, 2020Dismissed
Defendants: Intellectual Ventures I LLC
- Bank of America, N.A. et al. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLCfiled Nov 12, 2013CBM2014-00030Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)terminated Nov 12, 2014judgment
Defendants: Intellectual Ventures I LLC
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Bank of America Corporation et al.filed Aug 7, 20131:13-cv-01274Delaware District Courtterminated Nov 20, 2013Dismissed
Defendants: Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., and 2 others
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al.filed Jul 26, 20131:13-cv-05386New York Southern District Courtterminated Oct 2, 2013Dismissed
Defendants: JP Morgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corporationfiled Jun 21, 20131:13-cv-00740Virginia Eastern District Courtterminated Dec 13, 2013Dismissed
Defendants: Capital One Financial Corporation
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Bank of America, N.A. et al.filed Jun 21, 20133:13-cv-00358North Carolina Western District Courtterminated Sep 19, 2014Dismissed
Defendants: Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Corporation, and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Fidelity National Information Services Inc. et al.filed May 24, 20132:13-cv-00740Pennsylvania Western District Courtterminated Dec 16, 2013Dismissed
Defendants: Fidelity National Information Services Inc., Fidelity National Information Services LLC, FIS Global LLC, and 1 other
- 1:13-cv-00378Ohio Southern District Court
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Known litigation involving US patent 7603382 is detailed below:
Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), NA et al.
- Plaintiff(s): Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (collectively, "Intellectual Ventures")
- Defendant(s): Capital One Bank (USA), NA, Capital One Financial Corporation, and Capital One, NA (collectively, "Capital One")
- Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A related antitrust counterclaim by Capital One was litigated in the District of Maryland.
- Case Number:
- District Court (Eastern District of Virginia): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, but the appeal case number is 2014-1506.
- Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: No. 2014-1506.
- Filing Date: June 19, 2013, for the patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Outcome/Current Status:
- The District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that claims 1-5, 16, 17, and 19-22 of the '382 patent were invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the district court's judgment of invalidity with respect to the claims of the '382 patent on July 6, 2015. The CAFC's decision was largely based on the patents claiming an "abstract idea" ala Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l.
- Capital One also filed antitrust counterclaims against Intellectual Ventures. These counterclaims were dismissed by the Virginia court for failure to state a claim and later resulted in summary judgment against Capital One in the Maryland district court, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Generated 5/29/2026, 8:51:36 PM