AuthPoint LLC v. Silex Technology, Inc.
Infringement action filed 19 May 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 15 May 2026, with US8699395B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8699395B2
- Application no.
- US11/575054
- Case no.
- 2:25-cv-00546
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 19 May 2025 – 15 May 2026
- Duration
- 361 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Method and device for inverse multiplexing of multicast transmission
- 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
Method and device for inverse multiplexing of multicast transmission
A stream of multicast messages is forwarded through a network to a plurality of subscriber devices (18). The stream is inverse multiplexed and transmitted distributed over a plurality of communication channels (14). A plurality of inverse demultiplexers (16) is provided, to reassemble a plurality of copies of the stream from the multiplexed streams from the communication channels at different locations. Preferably, the final communication channels to a plurality of subscribers (e.g. telephone lines to different homes) are used as communication channels for said inverse multiplexing and the inversely multiplexed data is communicated locally (17) between the subscribers to enable reassembly of copies of the stream.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 15 Apr 2014
- Earliest priority
- 10 Sep 2004
- Est. expiry
- 22 May 2030
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LAARHUIS, JAN HERMAN
- Classification
- H04L12/28H04M11/06H04H20/71H04L12/18
- Prosecution counsel
- LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD
- Examiner
- RINEHART, MARK
Parties of record
AuthPoint LLC
- Core tech
- H04L12/28H04M11/06H04H20/71H04L12/18
- Counsel
- Isaac Phillip Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
Silex Technology, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | AuthPoint LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff AuthPoint LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 6). In the Notice, Plaintiff “dismisses this action with prejudice” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id. at 1). Defendant Silex Technology, Inc. has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all of Plaintiff’s claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT”
Case 2:25-cv-00546 · E.D. Tex. · closed 15 May 2026
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 2:25-cv-00546?
2:25-cv-00546 is a patent infringement action brought by AuthPoint LLC against Silex Technology, Inc., filed on 19 May 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 15 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:25-cv-00546?
US8699395B2 (“Method and device for inverse multiplexing of multicast transmission”), assigned to AUTHPOINT LLC, currently active. The record also lists Method and device for inverse multiplexing of multicast transmission.
How was case 2:25-cv-00546 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff AuthPoint LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 6). In the Notice, Plaintiff “dismisses this action with prejudice” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id. at 1). Defendant Silex Technology, Inc. has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all of Plaintiff’s claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ f
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 2:25-cv-00546 take?
361 calendar days, from filing on 19 May 2025 to closure on 15 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-00546?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff AuthPoint.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-00546 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.