Zipit Wireless, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 10 cases

10 cases on record naming Zipit Wireless, Inc.: 7 as claimant, 3 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

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

10 cases on record

Cases on record
10
As claimant
7
As respondent
3
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
H04W4/00 · H04Q7/20 · H04M1/72436 · G06F9/445 · G06F15/16 · G06F15/173 · G06F7/00
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
1:23-cv-01183 Zipit Wireless v. Google, LLC Plaintiff D. Del. 19 Oct 2023 106 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2021-1760 Apple, Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 19 Mar 2021 395 d Closed
4:20-cv-04545 HTC Corp. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc. Defendant N.D. Cal. 8 Jul 2020 323 d Voluntary dismissal
5:20-cv-04448 Apple, Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc. Defendant N.D. Cal. 3 Jul 2020 1266 d Judgment on the merits for Plaintiff
1:20-cv-02487 Zipit Wireless, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation Plaintiff N.D. Ga. 11 Jun 2020 14 d Voluntary dismissal
1:20-cv-02488 Zipit Wireless, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Ga. 11 Jun 2020 14 d Voluntary dismissal
1:20-cv-02489 Zipit Wireless, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. Plaintiff N.D. Ga. 11 Jun 2020 14 d Voluntary dismissal
6:18-cv-02016 Zipit Wireless, Inc. v. Lg Electronics, Inc. Plaintiff D.S.C. 23 Jul 2018 570 d Voluntary dismissal
6:17-cv-01243 Zipit Wireless, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Plaintiff D.S.C. 12 May 2017 137 d Voluntary dismissal
6:13-cv-02959 Zipit Wireless, Inc. v. Blackberry Limited Plaintiff D.S.C. 30 Oct 2013 1252 d Likely Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Zipit Wireless, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Zipit Wireless 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.