Technology Properties Limited, LLC Patent litigation record

Company 25 cases

25 cases on record naming Technology Properties Limited, LLC: 24 as claimant, 1 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

25 cases on record

Cases on record
25
As claimant
24
As respondent
1
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
G06F9/32 · G06F7/48 · G06F9/38 · G06F7/78 · G06F15/76 · G06F15/78
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
19-324 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Plaintiff U.S. Supreme Court 10 Sep 2019 55 d Appeal Denied
2018-1439 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 22 Jan 2018 380 d Closed
2018-1440 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. ZTE Corporation Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 22 Jan 2018 380 d Closed
2018-1441 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 22 Jan 2018 380 d Closed
2018-1444 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 22 Jan 2018 380 d Closed
2018-1445 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 22 Jan 2018 380 d Closed
2017-1536 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Canon, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 27 Jan 2017 439 d Closed
2017-1063 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Canon, Inc. Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 18 Oct 2016 540 d Closed
3:14-cv-03641 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Falcon Northwest Computer Systems, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 12 Aug 2014 303 d Likely Settlement
4:14-cv-03640 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Canon, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 12 Aug 2014 766 d Likely Settlement
4:14-cv-03641 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Falcon Northwest Computer Systems, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 12 Aug 2014 303 d Likely Settlement
4:14-cv-03642 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. HiTi Digital, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 12 Aug 2014 164 d Likely Settlement
4:14-cv-03643 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 12 Aug 2014 615 d Likely Settlement
4:14-cv-03644 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 12 Aug 2014 238 d Likely Settlement
4:14-cv-03645 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Newegg, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 12 Aug 2014 447 d Likely Settlement
4:14-cv-03646 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Seiko Epson Corporation Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 12 Aug 2014 695 d Likely Settlement
4:14-cv-03647 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Shuttle, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 12 Aug 2014 280 d Likely Settlement
2014-1317 HTC Corporation v. Technology Properties Limited Defendant Fed. Cir. 27 Feb 2014 334 d Closed
3:12-cv-03863 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 24 Jul 2012 1095 d Out-of-court Settlement
3:12-cv-03865 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 24 Jul 2012 1968 d Judgment on the Merits
3:12-cv-03876 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. ZTE Corporation Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 24 Jul 2012 1968 d Likely Settlement
3:12-cv-03877 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. Plaintiff E.D. Cal. 24 Jul 2012 1968 d Likely Settlement
3:12-cv-03879 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Novatel Wireless, Inc. Plaintiff E.D. Cal. 24 Jul 2012 1085 d Likely Settlement
3:12-cv-03880 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Lg Electroncis, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 24 Jul 2012 1968 d Likely Settlement
3:12-cv-03881 Technology Properties Limited, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 24 Jul 2012 1968 d Likely Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Technology Properties Limited, LLC in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Technology Properties 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.