Book a demo
Bandspeed v. Realtek Semiconductor: Bluetooth Patent Infringement Case | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:20-cv-00765
FiledJul 2020
ClosedJan 2024
Patent Litigation

Bandspeed v. Realtek Semiconductor — 8-Patent Bluetooth Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

Bandspeed, Inc., an Austin-based patent holding company, sued Realtek Semiconductor Corporation in the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of eight Bluetooth-related patents across both Classic and LE product lines. After 1,271 days of litigation, the case was dismissed with prejudice in January 2024, permanently barring Bandspeed from refiling the same claims against Realtek.

Resolution time
1271days
Days litigated — roughly 3.5 years, above the median for multi-patent semiconductor cases
Patents asserted
8
US7027418B2 and 7 further patents asserted — Bluetooth Classic & LE wireless technology
Outcome
Dismissed with Prejudice
With prejudice — Bandspeed cannot refile these same patent claims against Realtek
Cost ruling
Not specified
Cost allocation not detailed in public termination record
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Eight-patent Bluetooth ambush ends with permanent dismissal in W.D. Texas

Bandspeed, Inc., a Texas LLC headquartered in Austin, filed suit against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation on July 20, 2020 in the Western District of Texas before Judge David Alan Ezra. The complaint asserted eight US patents — the ‘418, ‘624, ‘614, ‘608, ‘643, ‘500, ‘769, and ‘520 patents — all covering inventions related to Bluetooth frequency management, channel selection, and interference avoidance across both Bluetooth Classic and Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) product categories. Realtek, a Taiwan-incorporated semiconductor company, was alleged to manufacture, import, and sell infringing integrated circuits and semiconductor devices into the US market.

The case concluded on January 12, 2024, when it was dismissed with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits under US procedural law: it extinguishes Bandspeed’s right to bring the same patent infringement claims against Realtek in any future proceeding. This represents the most definitive form of closure short of a trial verdict, and typically reflects either a negotiated settlement with agreed finality, a successful invalidity or non-infringement defence, or a court-ordered sanction — the precise basis is not disclosed in the public termination record.

The 1,271-day duration — nearly 3.5 years — suggests the parties engaged in substantive litigation before resolution, likely including claim construction, discovery, and potentially inter partes review proceedings. The with-prejudice designation goes beyond a simple settlement walkaway and suggests either Realtek secured a licence covering future activity or Bandspeed exhausted its viable litigation path. The exact commercial terms, if any licence was granted, remain undisclosed. What is clear is that Realtek’s Bluetooth product line faces no further exposure from these eight specific patents by Bandspeed.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:20-cv-00765
CourtTexas Western
JudgeDavid Alan Ezra
FiledJuly 20, 2020
ClosedJanuary 12, 2024
Duration1271 days
OutcomeDismissed with Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed with Prejudice
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Western District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to dismissal in 1271 days

Days litigated — roughly 3.5 years, above the median for multi-patent semiconductor cases

Case timeline: Complaint filed May 13 2025, APR–MAY — 1271 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Bandspeed, Inc. v Realtek Semiconductor, Corp. from filing to voluntary dismissal. Source: PACER, Texas Western District Court. JUL 20 2020 Complaint filed APR–MAY 2020 Pre-trial proceedings JAN 12 2024 Dismissed with prejudice 1271 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Dismissed with prejudice: what the final order means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Dismissed with prejudice — a permanent bar on re-litigation

A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 operates as a final judgment on the merits. Bandspeed is permanently barred from asserting these eight Bluetooth patents against Realtek in any future action. This is the highest level of finality a defendant can obtain short of a full trial win, and it typically requires either court order, agreed stipulation, or exhaustion of the plaintiff’s litigation options.

Final — no refile possible
Settlement inference

Did the parties settle? The public record is silent

Dismissals with prejudice frequently follow confidential settlements where both parties agree to permanent closure — often including a patent licence or lump-sum payment. However, they can also follow a court-compelled outcome such as a successful summary judgment or IPR invalidation. The termination record does not disclose which path was taken here. Practitioners should not assume a settlement occurred without further docket investigation.

Basis undisclosed
Portfolio risk

Eight patents asserted — broad Bluetooth coverage at stake

Bandspeed’s complaint spanned eight issued US patents filed across nearly two decades (earliest application 2001, latest 2016), covering channel selection, adaptive frequency hopping, and interference management in both Bluetooth Classic and LE. This breadth suggests a deliberate portfolio strategy. With dismissal with prejudice, Realtek’s exposure under all eight patents in this action is extinguished, but third parties hold no preclusion benefit from this outcome.

All 8 patents closed
Venue context

W.D. Texas: a high-volume patent venue under scrutiny

The Western District of Texas under Judge Ezra was among the most active patent litigation venues in the US during this filing period. Filing here was a deliberate jurisdictional choice by Bandspeed, a Texas LLC. The venue’s docket density and relatively plaintiff-friendly reputation made it attractive for patent assertion entities. The multi-year duration here is consistent with the W.D. Texas average for complex, multi-patent semiconductor disputes.

W.D. Texas — Austin Division
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:20-cv-00765 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffBandspeed, Inc.CompanyAustin-based patent holding company — holder of US7027418B2 and 7 further Bluetooth patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantRealtek Semiconductor, Corp.CompanyTaiwan-incorporated fabless semiconductor company manufacturing Bluetooth and networking ICsSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAdam G. PriceAttorneyCounsel for Bandspeed, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristopher V. GoodpastorAttorneyCounsel for Bandspeed, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselGabriel R. GerveyAttorneyCounsel for Bandspeed, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMichael Damian FrenchAttorneyCounsel for Bandspeed, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselBrooks KenyonAttorneyCounsel for Realtek Semiconductor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselG. Blake ThompsonAttorneyCounsel for Realtek Semiconductor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJ. Mark MannAttorneyCounsel for Realtek Semiconductor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJeffrey Lance JohnsonAttorneyCounsel for Realtek Semiconductor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJeffrey T. QuiliciAttorneyCounsel for Realtek Semiconductor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRobert J. BensonAttorneyCounsel for Realtek Semiconductor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSteven S. BaikAttorneyCounsel for Realtek Semiconductor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge David Alan EzraChief JudgeTexas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Stipulation of dismissal — official text

“Plaintiff Bandspeed, LLC (“Bandspeed”), by and through its attorneys, files its Complaint against defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (“Defendant”), and hereby alleges as follows: I. NATURE OF ACTION 1. This is a patent infringement action to end Defendant’s unauthorized and infringing manufacture, use, sale, offering for sale, and/or importation of methods and products incorporating Bandspeed’s patented inventions. 2. Bandspeed is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to: a. United States Patent No. 7,027,418 (“the ’418 Patent”), issued on April 11, 2006; b. United States Patent No. 7,477,624 (“the ’624 Patent”), issued on January 13, 2009; c. United States Patent No. 7,570,614 (“the ’614 patent”), issued on August 4, 2009; d. United States Patent No. 7,903,608 (“the ’608 Patent”), issued on March 8, 2011; e. United States Patent No. 8,542,643 (“the ’643 Patent”), issued on September 24, 2013; Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 1 of 57 2 f. United States Patent No. 8,873,500 (“the ’500 Patent”), issued on October 28, 2014; g. United States Patent No. 9,379,769 (“the ’769 Patent”), issued on June 28, 2016; h. United States Patent No. 9,883,520 (“the ’520 Patent”), issued on January 30, 2018. 3. The ’418 Patent, ’624 Patent, ’614 Patent, ’608 Patent, ’643 Patent, ’500 Patent, ’769 Patent, and ’520 Patent are, collectively, the “Patents.” 4. Bandspeed has all substantial right and interest to the Patents, including all rights to recover for all past and future infringement thereof. 5. Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and currently is infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and/or inducing the infringement of Bandspeed’s Patents, by, among other things, making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering for sale, within the territorial boundaries of the United States and the State of Texas, products that are covered by one or more claims of Bandspeed’s Patents and inducing such conduct by others. 6. Defendant manufactures, provides, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or distributes Infringing Products (as defined herein) and services; and/or induces others to make and use of its Infringing Products and services in an infringing manner; and/or contributes to the making and use of Infringing Products and services by others, including its customers, who directly infringe the Patents. II. THE PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Bandspeed is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Austin, Texas. Case 1:20-cv-00765-DAE Document 1 Filed 07/20/20 Page 2 of 57 3 8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Taiwan, with a place of business located at No. 2, Innovation Road II, Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan. 9. Realtek Semiconductor Corporation may be served with process by serving the Texas Secretary of State, James E. Rudder Building, 1019 Brazos Street, Austin, Texas 78701, as its agent for service because it engages in business in Texas but has not designated or maintained a resident agent for service of process in Texas as required by statute. This action arises out of that business. 10. Defendant manufactures and distributes electronics. Defendant, either itself and/or through the activities of its subsidiaries or agents, makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports throughout the United States, including within this District, products, such as electronics, semiconductor devices, and integrated circuits, that infringe the Asserted Patents, defined below.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:20-cv-00765, Texas Western District Court · Filed January 12, 2024

The complaint language reflects a standard multi-patent infringement assertion framing — covering making, using, selling, importing, and inducing infringement across Realtek’s entire US-facing semiconductor product line. The breadth of the accused products (integrated circuits, semiconductor devices, electronics generally) and the eight-patent portfolio suggest Bandspeed pursued a broad licensing posture rather than targeting a single product. The with-prejudice dismissal ultimately closed all asserted claims permanently against this defendant, though the complaint’s language has no preclusive effect on Bandspeed’s ability to assert the same patents against other parties.

PACER case 1:20-cv-00765 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US7027418B2 and 7 further patents — Bluetooth channel selection & frequency hopping

Publication No.US7903608B2
Application No.US12/352595
Patent details
AssigneeBandspeed, Inc.
ProductUS7903608B2 — Bluetooth channel management method
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJuly 20, 2020

Publication No.US9379769B2
Application No.US14/525120
Patent details
AssigneeBandspeed, Inc.
ProductUS9379769B2 — Bluetooth LE frequency selection system
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJuly 20, 2020

Publication No.US7570614B2
Application No.US09/948499
Patent details
AssigneeBandspeed, Inc.
ProductUS7570614B2 — Wireless interference avoidance method
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJuly 20, 2020

Publication No.US7477624B2
Application No.US11/397443
Patent details
AssigneeBandspeed, Inc.
ProductUS7477624B2 — Bluetooth adaptive frequency hopping
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJuly 20, 2020

Publication No.US7027418B2
Application No.US09/948488
Patent details
AssigneeBandspeed, Inc.
ProductUS7027418B2 — Bluetooth wireless frequency management
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJuly 20, 2020

Publication No.US8542643B2
Application No.US13/043419
Patent details
AssigneeBandspeed, Inc.
ProductUS8542643B2 — Bluetooth channel selection protocol
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJuly 20, 2020

Publication No.US8873500B2
Application No.US14/034206
Patent details
AssigneeBandspeed, Inc.
ProductUS8873500B2 — Wireless coexistence management system
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJuly 20, 2020

Publication No.US9883520B2
Application No.US15/194091
Patent details
AssigneeBandspeed, Inc.
ProductUS9883520B2 — Bluetooth LE channel optimisation method
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionJuly 20, 2020

Bandspeed’s eight asserted patents span application dates from approximately 2001 (US09/948488, US09/948499) through to 2016 (US15/194091), covering nearly the full arc of commercial Bluetooth technology development. The patents address core technical challenges in Bluetooth wireless communications: adaptive frequency hopping, channel quality measurement, interference detection and avoidance, and optimised channel selection for both Bluetooth Classic (BR/EDR) and the more recent Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) standard. These functions are fundamental to how Bluetooth devices avoid congestion in the 2.4 GHz ISM band and maintain reliable connections in crowded RF environments.

The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its coverage of functionality that is architecturally embedded in Bluetooth chip designs — the channel selection and frequency hopping logic cannot easily be designed around without departing from Bluetooth SIG specification compliance. This makes the patents particularly potent against fabless semiconductor companies like Realtek that must implement Bluetooth standards to remain commercially viable. The portfolio’s longevity — spanning over 15 years of issue dates — also means different patents may capture different generations of Bluetooth silicon, complicating any single invalidity strategy.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against Bandspeed’s Bluetooth patent portfolio?

Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing Bluetooth Classic or Bluetooth LE integrated circuits, modules, or end-products into the United States market should treat the Bandspeed portfolio as a live FTO concern. The with-prejudice dismissal against Realtek provides no safe harbour for third parties. Bandspeed’s patents cover channel selection, adaptive frequency hopping, and interference management — functionality present in virtually every commercially compliant Bluetooth chip. SoC vendors, module makers, and ODMs sourcing Bluetooth ICs should each independently assess claim coverage.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of Bandspeed’s eight patent claim sets against your product’s Bluetooth implementation, flagging which claims present the highest overlap risk and surfacing prior art that may support invalidity arguments. Eureka’s claim monitoring feature will also alert your team if Bandspeed files continuations or related applications that extend coverage into next-generation Bluetooth LE Audio or 5.0+ channel sounding implementations — ensuring your FTO remains current as the portfolio evolves.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7903608B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar Bluetooth patent infringement cases against semiconductor companies

PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Bandspeed, Inc. patent enforcement history, Texas Western case history, Bandspeed, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Bandspeed v. Dell Inc.Bluetooth SIG patent assertionsW.D. Texas semiconductor IP casesAdaptive freq. hopping disputes
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the Bluetooth semiconductor IP landscape

Eight Bluetooth patents litigated for 3.5 years and closed with prejudice — here is what competitors and licensees should take away.

Bandspeed’s Bluetooth portfolio remains active against third parties

The with-prejudice dismissal only bars Bandspeed from suing Realtek on these eight patents. Any other semiconductor company manufacturing Bluetooth Classic or LE chips — including those competing with Realtek — retains full exposure to the same patent portfolio. Companies shipping Bluetooth ICs into the US market should treat Bandspeed’s patents as live litigation risk.

Multi-patent assertion in Bluetooth LE is an established enforcement pattern

Asserting eight patents simultaneously signals a portfolio licensing strategy rather than a single product dispute. This approach is common among patent assertion entities in wireless standards-adjacent technology. R&D teams building Bluetooth LE stacks or channel-selection algorithms should audit claim scope across the full Bandspeed portfolio, not just the most-cited patents, to assess freedom-to-operate risk.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Includes sector IP trends, Judge Treadwell’s case history, and FTO risk assessment for the truck equipment space
Realtek defence cost estimateIPR filing probability signalBandspeed enforcement history
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Bandspeed v Realtek — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Run your own Bluetooth patent FTO and litigation analysis

Use PatSnap Eureka to map Bandspeed’s eight-patent portfolio against your Bluetooth product design, identify claim overlap, and monitor for new continuations. Track enforcement activity across the Bluetooth semiconductor sector in real time.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.