Apple, Inc. et al. v. California Institute of Technology
Infringement action filed 2 Sep 2022 in the U.S. Supreme Court and closed 26 Jun 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: petition dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US7116710B1US7421032B2US7916781B2
- Case no.
- 22-203
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Court level
- Supreme Court
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Judicial review
- Filed – Closed
- 2 Sep 2022 – 26 Jun 2023
- Duration
- 297 days
- Basis of termination
- Petition Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes
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
Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes
A serial concatenated coder includes an outer coder and an inner coder. The outer coder irregularly repeats bits in a data block according to a degree profile and scrambles the repeated bits. The scrambled and repeated bits are input to an inner coder, which has a rate substantially close to one.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 3 Oct 2006
- Earliest priority
- 18 May 2000
- Est. expiry
- 18 Aug 2020
- Validity challenges
- 6 on recordIPR2015-00068 · filed by Hughes Communications, IncIPR2017-00211 · Other · filed by Apple Inc.IPR2015-00067 · filed by Hughes Communications, Inc.IPR2017-00219 · Other · filed by Apple Inc.IPR2023-00130 · Patentability · filed by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTDIPR2017-00210 · Other · filed by Apple Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- JIN, HUI · KHANDEKAR, AAMOD · MCELIECE, ROBERT J.
- Classification
- H04B1/66
- Prosecution counsel
- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
- Examiner
- HA, DAC V.
Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes
A serial concatenated coder includes an outer coder and an inner coder. The outer coder irregularly repeats bits in a data block according to a degree profile and scrambles the repeated bits. The scrambled and repeated bits are input to an inner coder, which has a rate substantially close to one.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 2 Sep 2008
- Earliest priority
- 18 May 2000
- Est. expiry
- 18 Aug 2020
- Validity challenges
- 5 on recordIPR2017-00728 · Other · filed by Apple, Inc.IPR2017-00700 · Other · filed by Apple, Inc.IPR2017-00701 · Other · filed by Apple, Inc.IPR2023-00133 · Patentability · filed by Samsung Electronics Co LtdIPR2015-00060 · filed by Hughes Communications, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- JIN, HUI · KHANDEKAR, AAMOD · MCELIECE, ROBERT J.
- Classification
- H04L5/12
- Prosecution counsel
- Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
- Examiner
- HA, DAC V.
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Apple, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- William F. Lee.
- Firm
- Wilmerhale, LLP
- Also named
- Avago Technologies Limited · Broadcom Limited NKA Broadcom, Inc. · Broadcom Corporation
California Institute of Technology
- Core tech
- H04B1/66H04L5/12
- Counsel
- Kathleen Marie Sullivan
- Firm
- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| William F. Lee. | Apple, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Kathleen Marie Sullivan | California Institute of Technology | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Petition DENIED”
Case 22-203 · U.S. Supreme Court · closed 26 June 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 22-203?
22-203 is a patent infringement action brought by Apple, Inc. against California Institute of Technology, filed on 2 Sep 2022 in the U.S. Supreme Court. The case closed on 26 June 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 22-203?
US7116710B1 (“Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes”), assigned to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, currently inactive; US7421032B2 (“Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes”), assigned to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, currently inactive; US7916781B2 (“Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes”), assigned to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. The record also lists Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes.
How was case 22-203 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is petition dismissed. The termination text reads: “Petition DENIED”
How long did case 22-203 take?
297 calendar days, from filing on 2 Sep 2022 to closure on 26 June 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-203?
William F. Lee. is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Apple. Kathleen Marie Sullivan appears for defendant California Institute of Technology.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-203 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.