IP Verse

The Nielsen Company (Us), Llc V. Tvision Insights, Inc. - 1:23-cv-01346

Explore the details of the The Nielsen Company (Us), Llc V. Tvision Insights, Inc. case under case number 1:23-cv-01346 involving a cause of action for Patent Infringement. Review key information about the parties involved, the patents in question, and the docket entries.

Case Details

Case Number
1:23-cv-01346
Filing Date
Nov 22, 2023
Cause of Action
Patent Infringement
Status
-
Nature of Suit
Patent

Parties Involved in the Case

The following parties are involved in this case, with their respective legal representatives for the case.

NameRepresented By
TVision Insights, Inc. -
The Nielsen Company (US), LLC -

Patents Involved in the Case

Patents not found - set an alert to get notified when patents are added.

Docket Entries

The Docket Entries section provides a chronological list of all significant filings and court actions in this case.

DateDocket EntryType

Set alerts for critical docket entry

Jan 23, 2024SO ORDERED, re 11 STIPULATION to Extend Time (*Reset Answer Deadlines: TVision Insights, Inc. answer due 1/31/2024). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 1/23/2024. (nms)PACER Document
Jan 31, 2024CORRECTING ENTRY: The motion to consolidate filed on 1/31/2024, at D.I. 12 and its companion brief at D.I. 13 have been removed from the docket. Defendant has advised it will be refiling an amended motion. (nms)PACER Document
Feb 28, 2024ORAL ORDER: The redacted filing (D.I. 17 ) is REJECTED because parts of it are redacted in its entirety. Absent a compelling reason, supported by a statement under oath by a party, redactions in their entirety are impermissible; redactions must be done so as to redact the least possible amount of the materials submitted. Failure to make a good faith attempt at such redactions may result in sanctions, the most common of which would be simply unsealing the entire filing. Redacting in its entirety a document, or parts of it, that contains publicly available materials is prima facie evidence of bad faith. A revised redacted filing is DUE within five business days. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/28/2024. (nms) (Entered: 02/28/2024)PACER Document
Feb 29, 2024ORAL ORDER: The case is now REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke for all purposes through and including case dispositive motions. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/29/2024. (nms) Modified on 2/29/2024 (nms). (Entered: 02/29/2024)PACER Document
Feb 29, 2024CORRECTING ENTRY: The oral order filed at D.I. 20 has been slightly amended. The NEF for the entry has been regenerated. (nms)PACER Document
Feb 29, 2024MOTION REFERRED: 13 MOTION to Consolidate Case No. 23-1346-RGA with Case Nos. 22-057-CJB and 22-1345-CJB for Trial, and for Referral to Magistrate Judge Burke for Pretrial Matters Motion referred to Christopher J. Burke.(dlb)PACER Document
Mar 1, 2024Remark: The parties should be aware that the Court encourages the participation of newer attorneys in courtroom proceedings and at oral argument. Please see the Court's Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, a link to which is provided here for the parties' convenience:http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/forms/StandingOrder2017.pdf (dlb)PACER Document
Mar 1, 2024Remark: The parties should follow the Court's Standing Order Regarding Courtesy Copies, a copy of which is found on Judge Burke's portion of the District Court's webpage: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/CJBCC2022.pdf (dlb)PACER Document
Mar 4, 2024ORAL ORDER Setting Videoconference: The Court hereby ORDERS as follows with respect to Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Case Nos. 22-57-CJB and 22-1345-CJB for All Purposes And for Referral to Judge Andrews for Trial with Case No. 23-1346-RGA (the "Motion"), (D.I. 151 in C.A. No. 22-57-CJB; D.I. 91 in C.A. 22-1345-CJB; D.I. 13 in C.A. No. 23-1346-RGA-CJB): (1) A videoconference using the Microsoft Teams platform is set for April 8, 2024 at 10:00 AM before Judge Christopher J. Burke.; (2) By no later than March 25, 2024, the parties shall send an e-mail to the Court's Courtroom Deputy, Ms. Benyo, indicating the names and e-mail addresses of all individuals who will participate in the videoconference.; and (3) The Court may choose to resolve the Motion prior to the videoconference and will, in that event, cancel the videoconference (however, if any party advises the Court in advance that a newer attorney will argue the Motion, see Standing Order Regarding Courtroom Opportunities for Newer Attorneys, https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/StandingOrder2017.pdf, then the Court will go forward with the conference).Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 3/4/2024. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-00057-CJB, 1:22-cv-01345-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 03/04/2024)PACER Document
Apr 8, 2024ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' briefing with regard to Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Case Nos. 22-57-CJB and 22-1345-CJB for All Purposes And for Referral to Judge Andrews for Trial with Case No. 23-1346-RGA (the "Motion"), (D.I. (91 in 1:22-cv-01345-CJB, 151 in 1:22-cv-00057-CJB), D.I. (13 in 1:23-cv-01346-RGA-CJB)), hereby ORDERS that today's teleconference is CANCELED. The Court will issue an order resolving the Motion later today. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 4/8/2024. Associated Cases: 1:22-cv-00057-CJB, 1:22-cv-01345-CJB, 1:23-cv-01346-RGA-CJB(mlc) (Entered: 04/08/2024)PACER Document
Apr 8, 2024ORAL ORDER: The Court, having reviewed the parties' briefing with regard to Defendant's Motion to Consolidate Case Nos. 22-57-CJB ("the 889 case") and 22-1345-CJB ("the 243 case") for All Purposes And for Referral to Judge Andrews for Trial with Case No. 23-1346-RGA ("the 030 case") (the "Motion"), (D.I. 151 in Civil Action No. 22-057-CJB; D.I. 91 in Civil Action No. 22-1345-CJB; D.I. 13 in Civil Action No. 23-1346-RGA-CJB (hereinafter, the Court will refer to the "D.I." number in Civil Action No. 22-57-CJB, unless otherwise indicated)), having reviewed the parties' letter briefing, (D.I. 152; D.I. 162; D.I. 169), and having considered Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) and the "risk of prejudice and confusion wrought by consolidation against the risk of inconsistent rulings on common factual and legal questions, the burden on the parties and the court, the length of time, and the relative expense of proceeding with separate lawsuits if they are not consolidated," Myers v. New Castle Cnty., C.A. No. 12-1038-LPS, 2013 WL 3853181, at *1 (D. Del. July 24, 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), hereby ORDERS that the Motion is DENIED for the following reasons. (1) The 889 case is very far along. There, the parties are currently in the midst of summary judgment and Daubert motion briefing, (see D.I. 181-83; D.I. 185; D.I. 190), and trial is scheduled to begin in just six months. The parties and the Court have invested a substantial amount of work in getting the case to this point. The Court has held a Markman hearing, (D.I. 137), has issued orders regarding the disputed claim terms, (D.I. 140; D.I. 141) and has resolved discovery disputes, (D.I. 177; D.I. 180). Moreover, the Court has reserved the parties' October 7, 2024 trial date on its calendar for quite a while and has turned down other parties who have requested that week for trial. Regardless of whether or not Plaintiff will be entitled to the injunction it seeks with respect to the 889 patent, it would surely prejudice Plaintiff to now have to wait at least another year and a half to go to trial with respect to the 889 patent (as Defendant asks via the Motion). And in light of the Court and the parties' efforts to date in the 889 case, taking Defendant's suggested path would surely be inefficient for the Court and for the litigation as a whole. See, e.g., Entropic Commc'ns, LLC v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-CV-00125-JRG, 2023 WL 5613185, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2023) (denying a motion to consolidate where "[t]he cases are simply too far apart for it to be practical to consolidate them at this point" and where the plaintiff "should not have to delay in bringing its case to trial before a jury").; and (2) Meanwhile, the Court has recently granted Defendant's Motion to Stay the 243 case, pending the issuance of the Final Written Decision in the inter partes review proceeding relating to the 234 patent. (D.I. 104 & D.I. 106 in Civil Action No. 22-1345-CJB) And no schedule has yet issued in the 030 case. If and when the stay is lifted with respect to the 234 case, Defendant is free to re-raise its motion to consolidate the 243 case and the 030 case, and at that time, the Court could, along with Judge Andrews, consider what the most efficient and fair outcome of such a motion would be. (See D.I. 162 at 5 n.3 (Plaintiff noting that "if the Court is inclined to consider any consolidation, it should only consider consolidation of the []243 and []030 cases")). Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 4/8/2024. Associated Cases: 1:23-cv-01346-RGA-CJB, 1:22-cv-00057-CJB, 1:22-cv-01345-CJB(dlb) (Entered: 04/08/2024)PACER Document
Apr 8, 2024ORAL ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and discuss, in person and/or by telephone, each of the matters listed on Judge Burke's Case Management Checklist ("Checklist"). Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, the parties shall jointly file the following: (i) a copy of the Checklist, indicating the names of Lead Counsel and Delaware Counsel for each party; (ii) a proposed Scheduling Order, which is consistent with Judge Burke's "Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Patent" up through and including paragraph 16 (i.e., regarding the portions of the case schedule leading up to but not including the case dispositive motion stage of the case) and that is consistent with paragraphs 10-17 of Judge Andrews' "Rule 16 Scheduling Order - Patent" (i.e., regarding the portions of the case schedule from the case dispositive motion stage through post-trial motions).; and (iii) a letter, not to exceed three pages, that contains the following: (a) a description of what this case is about; (b) the parties' positions regarding any disputes in the proposed Scheduling Order, and (c) a list of the three most significant topics (other than Scheduling Order disputes) discussed during the parties' review of the Checklist items, along with a brief description as to what was discussed as to those topics. Thereafter, the Court may schedule a Case Management Conference/Rule 16 Scheduling Conference to be held with Judge Burke. The Checklist and Scheduling Orders can be found on Judge Burke's/Judge Andrews' portions of the District Court's website. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 4/8/2024. (dlb) (Entered: 04/08/2024)PACER Document
Apr 25, 2024Pro Hac Vice Fee - Credit Card Payment received for Jason Xu, Eric C. Cohen, and Michael F. Heafey. ( re 27 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jason Xu, Eric C. Cohen and Michael F. Heafey )( Payment of $ 150, receipt number ADEDC-4393134).(Russell, Andrew) (Entered: 04/25/2024)PACER Document
Apr 26, 2024SO ORDERED, D.I. 27 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Jason Xu, Eric C. Cohen and Michael F. Heafey filed by TVision Insights, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 04/26/2024. (smg)PACER Document
Apr 26, 2024Pro Hac Vice Attorney Michael F. Heafey for TVision Insights, Inc. 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. (oam)PACER Document
Apr 26, 2024Pro Hac Vice Attorney Eric C. Cohen for TVision Insights, Inc. 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. (oam)PACER Document
Apr 26, 2024Pro Hac Vice Attorney Jason L. Xu for TVision Insights, Inc. 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. (oam)PACER Document
May 13, 2024ORAL ORDER: The Court has resolved the parties’ disputes as to the form of the proposed Scheduling Order, and the Court has today entered that Order. To the extent that either party wishes the Court to schedule an in-person or telephonic Case Management Conference at this time, they should so inform the Court by letter. To the extent that the parties do not do so, the Court will not set a conference at this time. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/13/2024. (smg) (Entered: 05/13/2024)PACER Document
May 30, 2024SO ORDERED, D.I. 32 Stipulation to Stay Deadlines filed by TVision Insights, Inc. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 05/30/2024. (smg)PACER Document
Jul 15, 2024SO ORDERED, D.I. 33 Stipulation to Extend Stay and Joint Status Report filed by The Nielsen Company (US), LLC. Ordered by Judge Christopher J. Burke on 07/15/2024. (smg)PACER Document