Aperture Net, LLC v. Electric Mirror, Inc.
Infringement action filed 1 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington and closed 9 Mar 2023, with US6711204B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6711204B2
- Application no.
- US09/908639
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-01548
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Wash.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Washington
- Chief judge
- Tana Lin
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 1 Nov 2022 – 9 Mar 2023
- Duration
- 128 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Channel sounding for a spread-spectrum signal
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Channel sounding for a spread-spectrum signal
An improvement to a spread-spectrum code-division-multiple-access system, using a channel sounding signal from a base station (BS) to provide initial transmitter power levels for remote stations (RS). The base station transmits BS-spread-spectrum signals at a first frequency and receives RS-spread-spectrum signals, which are transmitted by the remote stations at the second frequency. The base station transmits a BS-channel-sounding signal at the same carrier frequency being used by the remote stations. The bandwidth of the BS-channel-sounding signal is much less than the bandwidth of the BS-channel-spread-spectrum signal. Each remote station tracks the BS-channel-sounding signal, for adjusting the initial RS-power level.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 23 Mar 2004
- Est. expiry
- 19 Dec 2019
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SCHILLING, DONALD L.
- Classification
- H04B7/26
- Prosecution counsel
- EPSTEIN & GERKEN
- Examiner
- GHAYOUR, MOHAMMAD H.
Parties of record
Aperture Net, LLC
- Core tech
- H04B7/26
- Counsel
- Philip P. Mann
- Firm
- Mann Law Group PLLC
Electric Mirror, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Duncan Calvert Turner · Siddhesh V. Pandit · Timothy J. Maier
- Firm
- Badgley Mullins Turner PLLC, Maier & Maier, PLLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Philip P. Mann | Aperture Net, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Duncan Calvert Turner | Electric Mirror, Inc. | Defendant |
| Siddhesh V. Pandit | Electric Mirror, Inc. | Defendant |
| Timothy J. Maier | Electric Mirror, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiffs Aperture Net, LLC, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, and Defendants Electric Mirror, Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree that the parties have resolved all issues between them and pray that the Court enter an order dismissing all the claims and causes of actions against defendants in the abovecaptioned case with prejudice, and with all parties to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Case 2:22-cv-01548 · W.D. Wash. · closed 9 March 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:22-cv-01548?
2:22-cv-01548 is a patent infringement action brought by Aperture Net, LLC against Electric Mirror, Inc., filed on 1 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The case closed on 9 March 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:22-cv-01548?
US6711204B2 (“Channel sounding for a spread-spectrum signal”), assigned to APERTURE NET LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Channel sounding for a spread-spectrum signal.
How was case 2:22-cv-01548 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Plaintiffs Aperture Net, LLC, by and through their undersigned counsel of record, and Defendants Electric Mirror, Inc., by and through its undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree that the parties have resolved all issues between them and pray that the Court enter an order dismissing all the claims and causes of actions against defendants in the abovecaptioned case with prejudice, and with all parties to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs.”
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:22-cv-01548 take?
128 calendar days, from filing on 1 Nov 2022 to closure on 9 March 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-01548?
Chief Judge Tana Lin presided. Philip P. Mann is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Aperture Net. Duncan Calvert Turner, Siddhesh V. Pandit and Timothy J. Maier appear for defendant Electric Mirror.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-01548 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
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.
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.