Book a demo

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

Try now
Dali Wireless v. AT&T et al. | Patent Lawsuit 2:23-cv-00246

Dali Wireless, Inc. v. AT&T, Inc. et al.

2:23-cv-00246 E.D. Tex. Closed US9820171B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 30 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 24 Jul 2023, with US9820171B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US9820171B2
Application no.
US15/205820
Case no.
2:23-cv-00246
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
30 May 2023 – 24 Jul 2023
Duration
55 days
Basis of termination
Voluntary dismissal
Products & marks
Remotely reconfigurable distributed antenna system and methods
Validity challenges
2 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:23-cv-00246, 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
US9820171B2 Active App. US15/205820

Remotely reconfigurable distributed antenna system and methods

The present disclosure is a novel utility of a software defined radio (SDR) based Distributed Antenna System (DAS) that is field reconfigurable and support multi-modulation schemes (modulation-independent), multi-carriers, multi-frequency bands and multi-channels. The present disclosure enables a high degree of flexibility to manage, control, enhance, facilitate the usage and performance of a distributed wireless network such as flexible simulcast, automatic traffic load-balancing, network and radio resource optimization, network calibration, autonomous/assisted commissioning, carrier pooling, automatic frequency selection, frequency carrier placement, traffic monitoring, traffic tagging, pilot beacon, etc.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
14 Nov 2017
Earliest priority
14 Sep 2010
Est. expiry
16 Aug 2031
Validity challenges
2 on recordIPR2020-01432 · filed by John Mezzalingua Associates, LLCIPR2023-00700 · Patentability · filed by ERICSSON INC
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04W72/00H04W72/04H04Q11/00H04W88/08H04B10/2575H04L25/02H03F3/24H03F1/32H04W24/02H04L5/00H04L45/60
Prosecution counsel
AKA CHAN LLP
Examiner
REGO, DOMINIC
US9820171B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US9820171B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
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

Defendant

AT&T, Inc.

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Not recorded
Firm
Not recorded
Also named
CommScope, Inc. · AT&T Services, Inc. · AT&T Mobility Corporation · AT&T Mobility II, LLC · CommScope Technologies, LLC · CommScope Holding Company, Inc. · AT&T Communications, LLC

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 is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Dali Wireless, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 7.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned case is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at 1.) In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief in the abovecaptioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain.”

Case 2:23-cv-00246 · E.D. Tex. · closed 24 July 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 2:23-cv-00246?

2:23-cv-00246 is a patent infringement action brought by Dali Wireless, Inc. against AT&T, Inc., filed on 30 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 24 July 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-00246?

US9820171B2 (“Remotely reconfigurable distributed antenna system and methods”), assigned to DALI WIRELESS, INC., currently active. The record also lists Remotely reconfigurable distributed antenna system and methods.

How was case 2:23-cv-00246 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Dismissal (“Notice”) filed by Dali Wireless, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 7.) In the Notice, Plaintiff represents that the above-captioned case is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. (Id. at 1.) In light of the Notice, which the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), all pending claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending requests for relief in the abovecaptioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-c

What does dismissal without prejudice mean?

A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.

How long did case 2:23-cv-00246 take?

55 calendar days, from filing on 30 May 2023 to closure on 24 July 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00246?

Andrea Leigh Fair and Claire Abernathy Henry are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Dali Wireless.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:23-cv-00246 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00246 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.