Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Competitive Access Systems v. Oracle et al. | Patent Lawsuit 2:22-cv-00287

Competitive Access Systems, Inc. v. Oracle et al.

2:22-cv-00287 E.D. Tex. Closed 3 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 27 Jul 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 16 Mar 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
2:22-cv-00287
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
27 Jul 2022 – 16 Mar 2023
Duration
232 days
Basis of termination
Case Transferred
Products & marks
Broadband communications device · Devices and methods for multipath communications · Multipath communication devices and methods
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:22-cv-00287, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8228801B2 Inactive App. US12/581852

Broadband communications device

The Residential Communications Gateway (RCG) is a broadband communications device that combines all voice, data and video communications to and from a typical residence or small business for transmission over a single, or a plurality of Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) lines separately or in conjunction with, a wireless broadband backbone. The RCG does this by employing packetized data with Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technologies combined with RF communications technologies. A key consideration to the design of the RCG is that no additional or special transmission equipment must be installed at the Central Office or anywhere else in the network to enable new calling features provided by the RCG as is the case with DSL and Cable systems. By eliminating the requirement for costly infrastructure enhancements, ubiquitous high speed communications and services can be deployed to every POTS subscriber.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
24 Jul 2012
Earliest priority
15 Oct 2002
Est. expiry
22 Jan 2025
Validity challenges
2 on record90015803 · EPR · filed by Apple Inc.90016051 · EPR · filed by Red Hat LLC
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04L12/26H04L12/28H04L45/24H04L12/56H04L12/66H04L45/74
Examiner
CHO, HONG
US8228801B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8228801B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US9350649B2 Inactive App. US14/512414

Multipath communication devices and methods

The Residential Communications Gateway (RCG) is a broadband communications device that combines all voice, data and video communications to and from a typical residence or small business for transmission over a single, or a plurality of Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS) lines separately or in conjunction with, a wireless broadband backbone. The RCG does this by employing packetized data with Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technologies combined with RF communications technologies. A key consideration to the design of the RCG is that no additional or special transmission equipment must be installed at the Central Office or anywhere else in the network to enable new calling features provided by the RCG as is the case with DSL and Cable systems. By eliminating the requirement for costly infrastructure enhancements, ubiquitous high speed communications and services can be deployed to every POTS subscriber.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
24 May 2016
Earliest priority
15 Oct 2002
Est. expiry
14 Oct 2023
Validity challenges
3 on recordIPR2025-01380 · Patentability · filed by RED HAT, INCIPR2023-00880 · Patentability · filed by ORACLE CORPORATION90016054 · EPR
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04L12/54H04L12/707H04W88/16H04W28/06H04W40/02H04W72/04H04W8/26H04W80/00H04W84/12H04W84/18H04L45/24H04L12/28H04L12/56H04L12/66H04L45/74
Examiner
CHO, HONG
US9350649B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9350649B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

1 more

The docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.

Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Before the Court, plaintiff Competitive Access Systems, Inc. and defendants Oracle Corporation and Oracle America, Inc. move jointly to stay all pending deadlines and to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. Dkt. No. 49. Having considered the motion, it is GRANTED. All pending deadlines in the above captioned case are hereby STAYED, and the Clerk of Court shall TRANSFER the case without delay to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.”

Case 2:22-cv-00287 · E.D. Tex. · closed 16 March 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 2:22-cv-00287?

2:22-cv-00287 is a patent infringement action brought by Competitive Access Systems, Inc. against Oracle, filed on 27 Jul 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 16 March 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 2:22-cv-00287?

US8228801B2 (“Broadband communications device”), assigned to COMPETITIVE ACCESS SYSTEMS, INC., currently inactive; US9350649B2 (“Multipath communication devices and methods”), assigned to COMPETITIVE ACCESS SYSTEMS, INC., currently inactive; US10868908B2 (“Devices and methods for multipath communications”), assigned to COMPETITIVE ACCESS SYSTEMS, INC.. The record also lists Broadband communications device, Devices and methods for multipath communications and Multipath communication devices and methods.

How was case 2:22-cv-00287 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “Before the Court, plaintiff Competitive Access Systems, Inc. and defendants Oracle Corporation and Oracle America, Inc. move jointly to stay all pending deadlines and to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. Dkt. No. 49. Having considered the motion, it is GRANTED. All pending deadlines in the above captioned case are hereby STAYED, and the Clerk of Court shall TRANSFER the case without delay to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.”

What does transfer mean?

A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.

How long did case 2:22-cv-00287 take?

232 calendar days, from filing on 27 Jul 2022 to closure on 16 March 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-00287?

Andrea Leigh Fair, Claire Abernathy Henry, Courtney Neufeld, Jack Wesley Hill, James A. Shimota, Nicholas F. Lenning and Patrick Duffy Richards are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Competitive Access Systems. Christopher Scott Ponder, Deron R. Dacus, Harper S. Batts and Jeffrey Liang appear for defendant Oracle.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:22-cv-00287 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-00287 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

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