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 2:22-cv-00012

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

2:22-cv-00012 E.D. Tex. Closed 4 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 7 Jan 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 3 Nov 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
2:22-cv-00012
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
7 Jan 2022 – 3 Nov 2023
Duration
665 days
Basis of termination
Case Dismissed
Products & marks
ION®-E/ERA platform · OneCell product · Radio Dot System
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:22-cv-00012, 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
US10334499B2 Inactive App. US16/059434

Distributed antenna system

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 invention 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. As a result, a DAS in accordance with the present invention can increase the efficiency and traffic capacity of the operators’ wireless network.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
25 Jun 2019
Earliest priority
7 Feb 2011
Est. expiry
23 Apr 2028
Validity challenges
4 on recordIPR2022-01293 · Patentability · filed by CommScope Technologies LLCIPR2023-00830 · Patentability · filed by T-MobileIPR2020-01430 · filed by John Mezzalingua Associates, LLCIPR2023-00818 · Patentability · filed by AT&T, Inc.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04W24/04H04L27/26H04W40/00H04B1/04H04W24/02H04L27/36H04B7/022H04W72/04H04L25/03H03F3/24H03F1/32H04W40/02H04W88/08
Prosecution counsel
AKA CHAN LLP
Examiner
ZHAO, WEI
US10334499B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10334499B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US8682338B2 Inactive App. US13/211243

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. As a result, the SDR DAS can increase the efficiency and traffic capacity of the operators’ wireless network.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
25 Mar 2014
Earliest priority
14 Sep 2010
Est. expiry
23 Apr 2028
Validity challenges
3 on recordIPR2022-01212 · Patentability · filed by Ericsson, Inc. c/o Duane Morris LLPIPR2020-01466 · Other · filed by CommScope Technologies LLC, CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina, CommScope, Inc, and CommScope Holding Company, Inc.IPR2023-00646 · Patentability · filed by AT&T CORP.,AT&TCOMMUNICATIONS LLC
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04W72/00H04L45/60
Prosecution counsel
AKA CHAN LLP
Examiner
REGO, DOMINIC E
US8682338B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8682338B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

2 more

The docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents 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

Plaintiff

Dali Wireless, Inc.

Core tech
H04W24/04H04L27/26H04W40/00H04B1/04
Counsel
Aaron David Weisman · Alden K. W. Lee · Andrea Leigh Fair · Claire Abernathy Henry · Cliff Win · Cristofer Ivan Leffler · David Douglas Schumann · Joseph Michael Abraham · Moses Xie · Palani P. Rathinasamy · Stefan Szpajda · Steven Thomas Skelley · Timothy Franklin Dewberry
Firm
Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller – San Francisco, Folio Law Group PLLC, Folio Law Group PLLC (Austin), Folio Law Group PLLC (Seattle), Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
Defendant

AT&T, Inc.

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Christopher Joseph Tyson · Deron R. Dacus · Glenn D. Richeson · John R. Gibson · Joseph Andrew Powers · Matthew Sean Yungwirth
Firm
Bakerhostetler, Duane Morris LLP (Atlanta), Duane Morris LLP (PA), Duane Morris LLP – Washington, The Dacus Firm PC
Also named
CommScope, Inc. · AT&T Services, Inc. · AT&T Mobility Corporation · AT&T Mobility II, LLC · CommScope Technologies, LLC · CommScope Holding Company, Inc. · Telefonaktiebolaget L.M. Ericsson · Ericsson, 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 Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Dali Wireless, Inc. (“Dali”) and Defendants CommScope Holding Company, Inc., CommScope Inc., and CommScope Technologies LLC (“CommScope”). (Dkt. No. 171.) In the Stipulation, the Dali and CommScope represent they have reached a settlement, which also covers Dali’s remaining claims against CommScope’s customers AT&T Corp., AT&T Communications LLC, AT&T Mobility, AT&T Mobility II LLC, AT&T Services Inc. (“AT&T”) for use of CommScope’s products. Therefore, the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. All of Dali’s claims in the pleadings are dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 1) 2. All of CommScope’s counterclaims in the pleadings are dismissed with prejudice. (Id.) 3. All of AT&T’s counterclaims in the pleadings are dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Dali and CommScope in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and all claims and causes of action asserted by AT&T are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT.”

Case 2:22-cv-00012 · E.D. Tex. · closed 3 November 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-00012?

2:22-cv-00012 is a patent infringement action brought by Dali Wireless, Inc. against AT&T, Inc., filed on 7 Jan 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 3 November 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 2:22-cv-00012?

US10334499B2 (“Distributed antenna system”), assigned to DALI WIRELESS, INC., currently inactive; US8682338B2 (“Remotely reconfigurable distributed antenna system and methods”), assigned to DALI WIRELESS, INC., currently inactive; US9197358B2 (“Method and system for soft frequency reuse in a distributed antenna system”), assigned to DALI WIRELESS, INC.; US11026232B2 (“Remotely reconfigurable distributed antenna system and methods”), assigned to DALI WIRELESS, INC.. The record also lists ION®-E/ERA platform, OneCell product and Radio Dot System.

How was case 2:22-cv-00012 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Dali Wireless, Inc. (“Dali”) and Defendants CommScope Holding Company, Inc., CommScope Inc., and CommScope Technologies LLC (“CommScope”). (Dkt. No. 171.) In the Stipulation, the Dali and CommScope represent they have reached a settlement, which also covers Dali’s remaining claims against CommScope’s customers AT&T Corp., AT&T Communications LLC, AT&T Mobility, AT&T Mobility II LLC, AT&T Services Inc. (“AT&T”) for use of CommScope’s products. Therefore, the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. All of Dali’s

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 2:22-cv-00012 take?

665 calendar days, from filing on 7 Jan 2022 to closure on 3 November 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-00012?

Aaron David Weisman, Alden K. W. Lee, Andrea Leigh Fair, Claire Abernathy Henry, Cliff Win, Cristofer Ivan Leffler, David Douglas Schumann, Joseph Michael Abraham, Moses Xie, Palani P. Rathinasamy, Stefan Szpajda, Steven Thomas Skelley and Timothy Franklin Dewberry are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Dali Wireless. Christopher Joseph Tyson, Deron R. Dacus, Glenn D. Richeson, John R. Gibson, Joseph Andrew Powers and Matthew Sean Yungwirth appear for defendant AT&T.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:22-cv-00012 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-00012 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.