Sharp Corporation Patent litigation record

Company 22 cases

22 cases on record naming Sharp Corporation: 5 as claimant, 17 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Profile this company in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

22 cases on record

Cases on record
22
As claimant
5
As respondent
17
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
G02F1/1337 · G02F1/1343 · G02F1/1362 · G02F1/136 · G02F1/1333 · G02F1/137 · H04W4/00 · H04J3/16 · H04W56/00 · H04W72/04 · H04K1/10 · H04L27/28 · H04J1/00
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
7:26-cv-00034 Control Sync Systems, LLC v. Sharp Corporation Defendant W.D. Tex. 30 Jan 2026 153 d Voluntary dismissal
2:25-cv-00404 e-Beacon LLC v. Sharp Corporation Defendant E.D. Tex. 17 Apr 2025 69 d Voluntary dismissal
4:24-cv-00541 Freedom Patents, LLC v. Sharp, Corp. Defendant E.D. Tex. 14 Jun 2024 297 d Dismissed with Prejudice
4:24-cv-00274 Encryptawave Technologies, LLC v. Sharp, Corp. Defendant E.D. Tex. 29 Mar 2024 209 d Voluntary dismissal
7:23-cv-00191 Vdpp, LLC v. Sharp Corporation Defendant W.D. Tex. 1 Dec 2023 150 d Voluntary dismissal
2:23-cv-00165 Longitude Licensing Limited v. Sharp Corporation Defendant E.D. Tex. 11 Apr 2023 87 d Voluntary dismissal
22-1870 Wi-lan v. Sharp Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 3 Jun 2022 487 d Voluntary dismissal
6:21-cv-00733 Digital Cache, LLC v. Sharp Corporation Defendant W.D. Tex. 16 Jul 2021 56 d Voluntary dismissal
4:20-cv-05555 Onscreen Dynamics, LLC v. Sharp Corporation Defendant N.D. Cal. 10 Aug 2020 225 d Voluntary dismissal
337-TA-1201 Sharp Corporation v. TPV Display Technology (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. Plaintiff United States International Trade Commission 27 May 2020 77 d Closed
8:20-cv-00490 Sharp Corporation v. Vizio, Inc Plaintiff C.D. Cal. 10 Mar 2020 135 d Voluntary dismissal
2:18-cv-00071 Mariner IC, Inc. v. Sharp Corporation Defendant E.D. Tex. 13 Mar 2018 527 d Likely Settlement
1:18-cv-00054 Sharp Corporation v. Hisense Electric Co., Ltd. Plaintiff N.D. Ga. 4 Jan 2018 5 d Voluntary dismissal
337-TA-1072 Sharp Corporation v. Hisense Co., Ltd. Plaintiff United States International Trade Commission 3 Oct 2017 153 d Closed
1:17-cv-05404 Sharp Corporation v. Hisense Electric Co., Ltd. Plaintiff S.D.N.Y. 17 Jul 2017 158 d Case Transferred
1:17-cv-10026 Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Sharp Corporation Defendant D. Mass. 6 Jan 2017 146 d Other
1:16-cv-00351 North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Sharp Corporation Defendant D. Del. 12 May 2016 314 d Likely Settlement
3:16-cv-00530 Content Aggregation Solutions, LLC v. Sharp Corporation Defendant S.D. Cal. 2 Mar 2016 275 d Likely Settlement
3:15-cv-01300 Nova Intellectual Solutions, LLC v. Sharp Corporation Defendant S.D. Cal. 12 Jun 2015 297 d Likely Settlement
1:15-cv-00379 Wi-Lan, Inc. v. Sharp Corporation Defendant D. Del. 11 May 2015 1585 d Judgment on the Merits
1:14-cv-00338 Surpass Tech Innovation, LLC v. Sharp Corporation Defendant D. Del. 14 Mar 2014 1123 d Out-of-court Settlement
2:13-cv-01074 E-Watch, Inc. v. Sharp Corporation Defendant E.D. Tex. 10 Dec 2013 518 d Likely Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Sharp Corporation in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Sharp 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.