US9510320B2 Patent litigation record

Patent 9 cases

US9510320B2 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
Traxcell Technologies
Asserted against
Huawei Technologies · AT&T · ALE USA · Verizon Communications · Huawei Technologies USA · Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy · Samsung Electronics America
Courts
Fed. Cir. · C.D. Cal. · E.D. Tex.
Technology
wireless communication networks
Case no.PartiesCourtFiledDurationOutcome
23-1782 Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd. Fed. Cir. 24 Apr 2023 394 d Appeal Dismissed
23-1436 Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. AT&T, Inc. Fed. Cir. 30 Jan 2023 164 d Appeal Dismissed
23-1246 Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. AT&T, Inc. Fed. Cir. 15 Dec 2022 210 d Unpatentable
2:18-cv-06736 Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. ALE USA, Inc. C.D. Cal. 6 Aug 2018 443 d Voluntary dismissal
2:17-cv-00721 Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc. E.D. Tex. 31 Oct 2017 897 d Case Dismissed
2:17-cv-00041 Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. ALE USA, Inc. E.D. Tex. 12 Jan 2017 572 d Case Transferred
2:17-cv-00042 Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. E.D. Tex. 12 Jan 2017 1093 d Case Dismissed
2:17-cv-00044 Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy E.D. Tex. 12 Jan 2017 1112 d Case Dismissed
2:17-cv-00045 Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. E.D. Tex. 12 Jan 2017 372 d Likely Settlement
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases asserting US9510320B2 in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

How strong is US9510320B2?

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.