NEC v. Becker: Court Transfers Mobile App Patent Case

Updated on Nov. 28, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

In a swift procedural ruling that underscores the critical importance of proper venue selection in patent litigation, the Texas Northern District Court sua sponte transferred NEC’s patent infringement action against Becker Professional Development Corp. to the Dallas Division just seven days after filing. Case No. 4:25-cv-00334, filed March 28, 2025, alleged infringement of US8752101B2 through Becker’s mobile applications and web platform. Chief Judge Mark Pittman’s April 4, 2025 order highlights how venue missteps can impact patent assertions before substantive proceedings begin.

This NEC Becker patent case analysis demonstrates the ongoing judicial emphasis on proper divisional venue in Northern District of Texas patent cases, a jurisdiction among the most active for mobile technology patent infringement litigation in 2025.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

NEC Corporation is a multinational technology company with operations in IT services, network solutions, and electronics, maintaining a patent portfolio covering telecommunications and mobile technologies.

Becker Professional Development Corp. operates in professional education and certification preparation, offering exam preparation through digital platforms including web and mobile applications. The company’s Dallas-area presence became central to this procedural dispute.

The Patent at Issue

US8752101B2 forms the basis of NEC’s asserted claims. The patent relates to technology allegedly implemented in mobile application functionality. Explore similar cases on Patsnap Eureka IP to research related patent families and prior art landscapes.

The Accused Products

NEC’s complaint targeted three Becker product categories: Android apps, Becker’s mobile iOS applications, and the Becker Web Application—digital delivery infrastructure serving Becker’s certification preparation business.

Legal Representation

Baker Botts LLP represented NEC with a seven-attorney team. Defendant’s counsel was not entered prior to transfer.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

⚖️ March 28, 2025: NEC filed its complaint in the Fort Worth Division, asserting patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271.

⚖️ April 4, 2025: Chief Judge Mark Pittman issued a sua sponte transfer order to the Dallas Division.

The seven-day duration reflects the court’s identification of the venue defect. Judge Pittman noted Dallas County falls within the Dallas Division under 28 U.S.C. § 124(a)(1), with nothing in NEC’s complaint demonstrating Fort Worth Division connection.

💡 Key Insight: Patent plaintiffs must verify divisional venue with the same rigor applied to district-level analysis. Multi-division districts require precise geographic mapping of defendant locations.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

The court directed transfer from Fort Worth to Dallas Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This was not a dismissal—NEC’s patent validity and infringement allegations remain pending in Dallas Division. No claim construction, damages determination, or injunctive relief occurred at this stage.

Legal Reasoning

Judge Pittman cited Caldwell v. Palmetto State Savings Bank of S.C., 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987), establishing Fifth Circuit authority for sua sponte transfers when venue is laid in the wrong division. The court found no facts connecting either party to Fort Worth despite NEC’s reliance on Becker’s Dallas business location for venue purposes.

Legal Significance

This order reinforces the distinction between district-level venue under the patent venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and divisional venue within multi-division districts. Track litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP for Northern District of Texas patent cases.

Strategic Observations

🔬 For Patent Holders: Confirming which specific division encompasses a defendant’s location under local rules may help avoid procedural delays.

⚖️ For Accused Infringers: Monitoring initial filings for venue defects may present opportunities for early procedural challenges.

🔬 For R&D Teams: This procedural outcome does not resolve the underlying patent allegations. Companies with similar mobile technology may consider FTO (freedom to operate) analysis.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The mobile application and ed-tech sectors face ongoing patent activity covering user interfaces, data synchronization, and content delivery. NEC’s assertion reflects continued patent holder interest in professional development platforms.

💡 Key Insight: Multi-product assertions from single patents can create significant exposure. NEC targeted three distinct Becker products in its complaint.

The transfer places this case before Dallas Division judges. Settlement dynamics may develop as the case progresses. Analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP for competitive intelligence in mobile technology sectors.

Key Takeaways

⚖️ For Patent Attorneys:

• Divisional venue analysis warrants attention equal to district-level venue selection
• Sua sponte transfers under § 1406(a) can occur rapidly after filing
• Fifth Circuit precedent (Caldwell) supports court-initiated venue corrections

📊 For IP Professionals:

• Transferred cases should be monitored for substantive developments in the new venue
• Documenting defendant locations with divisional specificity during pre-filing investigation may prevent procedural setbacks

🔬 For R&D Teams:

• Procedural transfers do not resolve underlying infringement allegations
• Cross-platform products (iOS, Android, web) may face multi-product exposure
• Proactive prior art searches and FTO analysis may inform product development decisions

Looking Ahead: Substantive proceedings will continue in Dallas Division. Research patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP.

FAQ

What patent is involved in NEC v. Becker Professional Development Corp.? US8752101B2, relating to mobile application technology.

Why was the case transferred? The court identified improper divisional venue—NEC filed in the Fort Worth Division, but Becker’s Dallas business location falls within the Dallas Division under 28 U.S.C. § 124(a)(1).

Is the case dismissed? No. NEC’s claims remain pending in the Dallas Division where substantive proceedings will continue.

Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP for coverage of mobile technology patent litigation.

External Resources: PACER Case Lookup | USPTO Patent Database | IPWatchdog

SEO Schema: Article, LegalService, FAQPage

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information presented is based on publicly available case data and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a qualified patent attorney. Readers should consult with licensed legal professionals regarding specific legal questions or matters. Past case outcomes do not predict future results.