Bataan Licensing v. Mako Networks: Consent Judgment in 126 Days
Bataan Licensing LLC asserted US7423982B2, covering adaptive communication modes, against Mako Networks Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois. The case resolved by consent judgment just 126 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
Patent licensing dispute resolved swiftly via consent judgment
On 27 September 2022, Bataan Licensing LLC filed a patent infringement action against Mako Networks Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:22-cv-05250), before Judge Mary M. Rowland. The asserted patent, US7423982B2, relates to adaptive communication modes — a technology domain relevant to managed network connectivity and adaptive switching between communication protocols.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order reflects a stipulation filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), under which Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice, Defendant's counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, and each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the consent judgment are not disclosed in the available record.
Resolution in 126 days is notably swift for a patent infringement matter in this district, suggesting the parties reached an understanding early — potentially before significant claim construction or discovery. What drove the resolution, and whether any commercial arrangement accompanied it, is not reflected in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 126 days
126 days — resolved well under the district median for patent infringement cases
US7423982B2 — Adaptive Communication Modes
Any R&D or product team building adaptive networking, SD-WAN, managed gateway, or multi-mode communication products should assess exposure to US7423982B2. The patent's assertion against a managed connectivity provider indicates the claims may be read broadly against commercial network infrastructure. An FTO analysis is particularly urgent for companies entering or scaling in the enterprise networking market.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss plaintiff's claims with prejudice and defendant's counterclaims without prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The asymmetric prejudice treatment is the structurally notable feature; the specific terms underlying the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
What a consent judgment means in patent litigation
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment on terms agreed by the parties. It carries the full force of a judicial ruling and formally closes the litigation. Unlike a bare stipulated dismissal, a consent judgment is enforceable by the court. Here, the stipulation was filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); the court recorded the termination basis as Consent Judgment.
Court-entered, binding and finalBataan Licensing's claims dismissed with prejudice
Bataan Licensing's infringement claims against Mako Networks are dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot re-assert the same claims against this defendant on the same patent. The consent judgment closes this enforcement action definitively. The specific terms — including any commercial arrangement — are not disclosed in the available public record.
Claims dismissed with prejudiceMako's counterclaims preserved without prejudice
Mako Networks' counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, meaning Mako retains the right to re-assert them in future proceedings should circumstances warrant. This asymmetry — plaintiff's claims dismissed with prejudice, defendant's counterclaims without — is a structurally notable feature of the agreed resolution, though what it reflects commercially is not in the public record.
Counterclaims dismissed w/o prejudiceAdaptive communication IP: enforcement risk persists for the sector
US7423982B2 remains a live patent asset. A consent judgment against one defendant does not extinguish the patent or limit enforcement against others. Companies operating in managed networking, SD-WAN, or adaptive protocol-switching markets should monitor this patent's status and Bataan Licensing's broader portfolio activity for signals of continued assertion.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Bataan Licensing, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US7423982B2 (adaptive communication modes)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Mako Networks, Inc. | Company | Mako Networks Inc. — provider of managed network and SD-WAN connectivity solutionsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Randolph Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Bataan Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven G. Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for Bataan Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP law | Law Firm | Representing Bataan Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andria Rae Crisler | Attorney | Counsel for Mako Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. Mcnabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Mako Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo J. Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for Mako Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Douglas Leighton | Attorney | Counsel for Mako Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson P.c. | Law Firm | Representing Mako Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Goldberg Kohn Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Mako Networks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mary M. Rowland | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the adaptive communication and managed networking space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Bataan Licensing v. Mako Networks and the US7423982B2 assertion in adaptive communication modes.
Bataan Licensing's assertion footprint in networking IP
Bataan Licensing's rapid consent judgment outcome suggests a focused licensing programme. Mapping their full patent portfolio and any related assignments or acquisitions can reveal whether US7423982B2 is part of a broader adaptive communication assertion campaign targeting the managed networking sector. Portfolio analysis may surface additional patents at risk of assertion.
Licensing entity portfolioFiling trends in adaptive protocol-switching and SD-WAN patents
The adaptive communication modes technology class — covering dynamic protocol negotiation and multi-mode connectivity — is an active filing area as SD-WAN and managed network deployments accelerate. Tracking patent application trends in this space helps R&D teams identify crowded claim territories and potential design-around opportunities before product launch.
SD-WAN filing trendsMako Networks' patent position in managed connectivity
Mako Networks operates in the managed network and SD-WAN connectivity space. Understanding their own patent filings and defensive IP posture — including any patents covering network management, adaptive routing, or connectivity failover — provides competitive intelligence for adjacent players in the enterprise networking market.
Mako Networks IP positionAdjacent innovation opportunities near US7423982B2's claim scope
The assertion of a patent on adaptive communication modes points to relative scarcity of defensible prior art in dynamic protocol-negotiation for managed networks. White-space analysis around US7423982B2's claim boundaries may reveal filing opportunities in next-generation adaptive connectivity — including AI-driven network mode selection and intent-based networking architectures.
White-space in adaptive networkingSimilar patent infringement cases in adaptive networking and managed connectivity
Explore related patent infringement actions involving adaptive communication and managed network patents filed in the Northern District of Illinois and comparable district courts.
What this case signals for the adaptive networking IP landscape
A swift consent judgment in a networking patent case raises questions about assertion strategy, portfolio strength, and sector-wide exposure.
Swift resolution suggests early leverage or licensing alignment
A 126-day resolution — before any significant claim construction record — typically signals that one or both parties assessed continued litigation as unfavourable early. Companies in the managed networking and SD-WAN space should treat this as a prompt to review FTO exposure against US7423982B2.
Asymmetric dismissal terms warrant careful reading
The structure — plaintiff's claims dismissed with prejudice, defendant's counterclaims without — is uncommon in straightforward settlements. It may preserve Mako's optionality on validity challenges. IP counsel monitoring this space should track whether any IPR or PGR proceedings are initiated against US7423982B2.
Bataan v Mako — key questions answered
The case resolved by consent judgment. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket stipulation, filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissed Bataan Licensing's claims with prejudice and Mako Networks' counterclaims without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Bataan Licensing asserted US7423982B2 (application no. US10/237299), a patent directed to adaptive communication modes. The product category identified in the litigation is adaptive communication modes, relevant to managed network connectivity and dynamic protocol-switching technologies.
Mako Networks' counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. This means Mako retains the right to re-assert those counterclaims in future proceedings if circumstances allow. The asymmetry — plaintiff's claims dismissed with prejudice, defendant's without — is a notable structural feature of the resolution, though what it reflects is not detailed in the public record.
The case was filed on 27 September 2022 and closed on 31 January 2023 — a duration of 126 days. This is notably swift for a patent infringement matter in the Northern District of Illinois, suggesting the parties reached agreement well before any significant claim construction or discovery milestones.
Yes. A consent judgment resolves the dispute between these two parties only. It does not invalidate or limit the enforceability of US7423982B2 against third parties. The patent remains a live asset, and companies in the adaptive networking, SD-WAN, or managed connectivity space should assess their exposure independently.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.