US8352880B2 Patent litigation record

Patent 9 cases

US8352880B2 has been asserted in 9 cases on record. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

9 cases on record

Cases on record
9
Asserted by
511 Technologies
Asserted against
Qualcomm · Huawei Technologies · SK Hynix · General Electric · Microsoft · Oracle · Delta Air Lines · Southwest Airlines · Zam Network
Courts
E.D. Tex.
Technology
electric digital data processing
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
2:17-cv-00426 511 Technologies, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc. E.D. Tex. 12 May 2017 47 d Voluntary dismissal
2:17-cv-00427 511 Technologies, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. E.D. Tex. 12 May 2017 47 d Voluntary dismissal
2:17-cv-00428 511 Technologies, Inc. v. SK Hynix, Inc. E.D. Tex. 12 May 2017 47 d Voluntary dismissal
2:17-cv-00177 511 Technologies, Inc. v. General Electric Company E.D. Tex. 6 Mar 2017 67 d Likely Settlement
2:17-cv-00178 511 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation E.D. Tex. 6 Mar 2017 57 d Likely Settlement
2:17-cv-00179 511 Technologies, Inc. v. Oracle Corporation E.D. Tex. 6 Mar 2017 114 d Voluntary dismissal
2:16-cv-00925 511 Technologies, Inc. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. E.D. Tex. 19 Aug 2016 265 d Likely Settlement
2:16-cv-00926 511 Technologies, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Company E.D. Tex. 19 Aug 2016 265 d Likely Settlement
2:16-cv-00928 511 Technologies, Inc. v. Zam Network, LLC E.D. Tex. 19 Aug 2016 167 d Voluntary dismissal
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US8352880B2 in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

How strong is US8352880B2?

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.