Microsoft, Co. v. Interdigital, Inc.

25-2050 Fed. Cir. Closed US8737933B2
Get a prior-art report

Patentability filed 26 Aug 2025 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 6 Nov 2025, with US8737933B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8737933B2
Application no.
US13/930743
Case no.
25-2050
Verdict cause
Patentability
Court
Fed. Cir.
Court level
Court of Appeals
Case region
District of Columbia
Judge
None recorded
Trial level
Appeal
Filed – Closed
26 Aug 2025 – 6 Nov 2025
Duration
72 days
Basis of termination
Unpatentable
Products & marks
Data transfer between wireless devices
Validity challenges
2 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 25-2050, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8737933B2 Active App. US13/930743

Data transfer between wireless devices

INTERDIGITAL PATENT HOLDINGS, INC.

Detecting, with Bluetooth, wireless transmit/receive units (WTRUs) in proximity to a WTRU is disclosed. The WTRU may send a message to transfer of a selected media to a selected WTRU. The WTRU may receive an acceptance to transfer the selected media to the selected WTRU. The selected media is transferred to the selected WTRU.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
27 May 2014
Earliest priority
23 Dec 2008
Est. expiry
22 Dec 2029
Validity challenges
2 on recordIPR2024-00305 · Patentability · filed by MicrosoftIPR2024-00537 · Patentability · filed by Microsoft
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04W88/02H04W4/02H04W4/80
Prosecution counsel
VOLPE KOENIG - IDC
US8737933B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US8737933B2, from the published patent document
US8737933B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US8737933B2, from the published patent document
Get a novelty search report in Eureka
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Andrew M. MasonMicrosoft, Co.Plaintiff
John D. VandenbergMicrosoft, Co.Plaintiff
Samuel ThackerMicrosoft, Co.Plaintiff
Sarah Elisabeth JelsemaMicrosoft, Co.Plaintiff
Richard Alan KamprathInterdigital, Inc.Defendant
Scott W. HejnyInterdigital, Inc.Defendant
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

"The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).(2) Each side shall bear their own costs."

Case 25-2050 · Fed. Cir. · closed 6 November 2025
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

Who else has this plaintiff sued? Every case naming Microsoft, with the patent, court and outcome for each Could my product read on this patent? Claim-by-claim comparison against your own design What else is litigated in this field? The dispute map for wireless communication networks
FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 25-2050?

25-2050 is a patent patentability brought by Microsoft, Co. against Interdigital, Inc., filed on 26 Aug 2025 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 6 November 2025.

Which patent was asserted in 25-2050?

US8737933B2 (“Data transfer between wireless devices”), assigned to INTERDIGITAL PATENT HOLDINGS, INC., currently active. The record also lists Data transfer between wireless devices.

How was case 25-2050 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: "The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).(2) Each side shall bear their own costs."

How long did case 25-2050 take?

72 calendar days, from filing on 26 Aug 2025 to closure on 6 November 2025.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 25-2050?

Andrew M. Mason, John D. Vandenberg, Samuel Thacker and Sarah Elisabeth Jelsema are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Microsoft. Richard Alan Kamprath and Scott W. Hejny appear for defendant Interdigital.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 25-2050 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question
Next step

Go further with this record

Read how the method works, run it on your own product, then size the next step.

  • 01 / How-toUsing patent search for competitive intelligenceRead a rival's filings to see where its products are going.GuideRead
  • 02 / AI agentFTO ReportCheck whether your own product could read on these claims.Patsnap EurekaRun it
  • 03 / Free toolAI prior art searchDescribe an idea, get the closest patents.AI resultTry tool

More next steps5G standard essential patents and licensing

Browse related dockets
Cases in Fed. Cir. Cases on wireless communication networks All patent litigation records

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 25-2050 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.

Patent figures. Any patent drawings shown are reproduced from the identified patent publications to illustrate the cited documents, and do not establish the scope, validity or enforceability of any patent.

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.