Keysight Technologies, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 8 cases

8 cases on record naming Keysight Technologies, Inc.: 0 as claimant, 8 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

8 cases on record

Cases on record
8
As claimant
0
As respondent
8
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
Not recorded
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
1:22-cv-00001 Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. Defendant E.D. Va. 1 Jan 2022 3 d Case Transferred
1:21-cv-03170 Colonial Licensing, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. Defendant D. Colo. 24 Nov 2021 9 d Voluntary dismissal
1:21-cv-00572 Stormborn Technologies, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. Defendant D. Del. 26 Apr 2021 16 d Voluntary dismissal
3:21-cv-01665 Software Research, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. Defendant N.D. Cal. 9 Mar 2021 70 d Voluntary dismissal
1:19-cv-02249 Constant Modulation, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. Defendant D. Del. 10 Dec 2019 65 d Voluntary dismissal
3:19-cv-00252 Zavala Licensing, LLC v. Keysight Technologies Inc Defendant N.D. Tex. 31 Jan 2019 21 d Voluntary dismissal
1:18-cv-10514 Greater Boston Authentication Solutions, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. Defendant D. Mass. 19 Mar 2018 77 d Voluntary dismissal
2:17-cv-00383 Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Keysight Technologies, Inc. Defendant E.D. Va. 20 Jul 2017 449 d Likely Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Keysight Technologies, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Keysight Technologies is protecting

Portfolio, claim scope and where its coverage is thin. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Analyse this portfolio
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.