US6947748B2 Patent litigation record

Patent 33 cases

US6947748B2 has been asserted in 33 cases on record. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Analyse this patent in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

33 cases on record

Cases on record
33
Asserted by
Adaptix
Asserted against
HTC · AT&T Mobility · Pantech Wireless · Apple · Cellco Partnership · Amazon.com · Dell · Kyocera · Sony Mobile Communications · NEC CASIO Mobile Communications · ZTE · AT&T
Courts
Fed. Cir. · N.D. Cal. · E.D. Tex.
Technology
transmission (general) and digital information transmission · digital information transmission
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
2016-1869 Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corporation Fed. Cir. 18 Apr 2016 93 d Closed
2016-1871 Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corporation Fed. Cir. 18 Apr 2016 93 d Closed
2016-1874 Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corporation Fed. Cir. 18 Apr 2016 93 d Closed
2016-1139 Adaptix, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC Fed. Cir. 28 Oct 2015 288 d Closed
2016-1140 Adaptix, Inc. v. Pantech Wireless, Inc. Fed. Cir. 28 Oct 2015 288 d Closed
2015-1472 Adaptix, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC Fed. Cir. 19 Mar 2015 236 d Closed
2015-1473 Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. Fed. Cir. 19 Mar 2015 236 d Closed
2015-1474 Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. Fed. Cir. 19 Mar 2015 236 d Closed
2015-1465 Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. Fed. Cir. 18 Mar 2015 237 d Closed
2015-1467 Adaptix, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership, Inc. Fed. Cir. 18 Mar 2015 237 d Closed
2015-1462 Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. Fed. Cir. 17 Mar 2015 238 d Closed
2015-1463 Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. Fed. Cir. 17 Mar 2015 238 d Closed
2015-1441 Adaptix, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC Fed. Cir. 13 Mar 2015 495 d Closed
2015-1442 Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. Fed. Cir. 13 Mar 2015 495 d Closed
5:15-cv-00962 Adaptix, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. N.D. Cal. 2 Mar 2015 175 d Likely Settlement
5:15-cv-00971 Adaptix, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. N.D. Cal. 2 Mar 2015 175 d Likely Settlement
5:15-cv-00364 Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. N.D. Cal. 26 Jan 2015 210 d Likely Settlement
5:15-cv-00365 Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. N.D. Cal. 26 Jan 2015 210 d Likely Settlement
5:15-cv-00366 Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corporation N.D. Cal. 26 Jan 2015 210 d Likely Settlement
5:15-cv-00367 Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corporation N.D. Cal. 26 Jan 2015 210 d Likely Settlement
5:14-cv-02894 Adaptix, Inc. v. Kyocera Corporation N.D. Cal. 24 Jun 2014 555 d Likely Settlement
5:14-cv-02360 Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corporation N.D. Cal. 21 May 2014 664 d Likely Settlement
5:14-cv-01385 Adaptix, Inc. v. Sony Mobile Communications, Inc. N.D. Cal. 26 Mar 2014 720 d Likely Settlement
5:14-cv-01379 Adaptix, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. N.D. Cal. 25 Mar 2014 721 d Likely Settlement
5:14-cv-01259 Adaptix, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. N.D. Cal. 20 Mar 2014 659 d Likely Settlement
6:13-cv-00922 Adaptix, Inc. v. NEC CASIO Mobile Communications, Ltd. E.D. Tex. 27 Nov 2013 419 d Likely Settlement
6:13-cv-00778 Adaptix, Inc. v. Pantech Wireless, Inc. E.D. Tex. 15 Oct 2013 1021 d Likely Settlement
6:13-cv-00443 Adaptix, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation E.D. Tex. 28 May 2013 591 d Case Transferred
6:13-cv-00444 Adaptix, Inc. v. ZTE Corporation E.D. Tex. 28 May 2013 591 d Case Transferred
5:13-cv-02023 Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. N.D. Cal. 2 May 2013 642 d Judgment on the Merits
5:13-cv-01778 Adaptix, Inc. v. AT&T, Inc. N.D. Cal. 19 Apr 2013 655 d Judgment on the Merits
6:12-cv-00120 Adaptix, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership, Inc. E.D. Tex. 9 Mar 2012 1299 d Judgment on the Merits
6:12-cv-00020 Adaptix, Inc. v. Pantech Wireless, Inc. E.D. Tex. 13 Jan 2012 1355 d Judgment on the Merits
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US6947748B2 in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

How strong is US6947748B2?

Closest prior art, compared claim by claim, with every reference rated for how hard it hits.

Run a novelty search
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.