IOT Licensing, LLC v. Schneider Pvt, Ltd. et al.
Infringement action filed 24 Aug 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and closed 18 May 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US7746804B1US7154866B2
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-11358
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Mass.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Massachusetts
- Chief judge
- F. Dennis Saylor IV
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 24 Aug 2022 – 18 May 2023
- Duration
- 267 days
- Basis of termination
- Consent Judgment
- Products & marks
- Message control protocol in a communications network having repeaters
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Message control protocol in a communications network having repeaters
A wireless communications network which provides directed transmissions between components of the network is provided. The components within the wireless communications include a master apparatus, a plurality of remote devices, and a plurality of repeaters. The components within the wireless communications network communicate using messages which have a control field and at least one information field. Information within the control field is used by components to make determinations for retransmitting the message, or transmitting a predefined response to the message, such as a signal strength response. The components within the network use the messages to make a determination of a communications target, which may be used as a primary contact for transmitting information, automatically, and may repeat the determination at predetermined intervals. Thus, the wireless communications network is able to adapt over time to additional components added into the network, or changing environmental conditions in and around the network.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 29 Jun 2010
- Est. expiry
- 15 Mar 2024
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHURMANTINE, NEAL · BURKHARD, DARYL · DUNBAR, STEVEN T. · HUME, DONALD J. · KOONCE, NATHAN · KOONCE, STEVE · PIERCE, PRESTON
- Classification
- H04J3/14H04B7/14H04L12/56
- Prosecution counsel
- CAESAR RIVISE, PC
- Examiner
- PHAM, CHI H
Message control protocol in a communications network having repeaters
A wireless communications network which provides directed transmissions between components of the network is provided. The components within the wireless communications include a master apparatus, a plurality of remote devices, and a plurality of repeaters. The components within the wireless communications network communicate using messages which have a control field and at least one information field. Information within the control field is used by components to make determinations for retransmitting the message, or transmitting a predefined response to the message, such as a signal strength response. The components within the network use the messages to make a determination of a communications target, which may be used as a primary contact for transmitting information, automatically, and may repeat the determination at predetermined intervals. Thus, the wireless communications network is able to adapt over time to additional components added into the network, or changing environmental conditions in and around the network.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 26 Dec 2006
- Est. expiry
- 2 Mar 2025
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHURMANTINE, NEAL · BURKHART, DARYL · DUNBAR, STEVEN T. · HUME, DONALD J. · KOONCE, NATHAN · KOONCE, STEVE · PIERCE, PRESTON
- Classification
- H04B7/14H04L12/56
- Prosecution counsel
- CAESAR RIVISE, PC
- Examiner
- TO, DORIS H.
Parties of record
IOT Licensing, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Catherine I. Rajwani · Gregory J. Myers
- Firm
- Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen PLLP, The Harbor Law Group
Schneider Pvt, Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Benjamin J. Bradford · Matthew E. Price · Terrence J. Truax
- Firm
- Jenner & Block LLP
- Also named
- Schneider Electric, SE
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Catherine I. Rajwani | IOT Licensing, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Gregory J. Myers | IOT Licensing, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Benjamin J. Bradford | Schneider Pvt, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Matthew E. Price | Schneider Pvt, Ltd. | Defendant |
| Terrence J. Truax | Schneider Pvt, Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff IoT Licensing, LLC and Defendant Schneider Electric USA, Inc. hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this matter in its entirety. The parties stipulate to dismissal of all Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant with prejudice and dismissal of all Defendant’s counterclaims against Plaintiff without prejudice, with all parties bearing their own costs and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 1:22-cv-11358 · D. Mass. · closed 18 May 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:22-cv-11358?
1:22-cv-11358 is a patent infringement action brought by IOT Licensing, LLC against Schneider Pvt, Ltd., filed on 24 Aug 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case closed on 18 May 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:22-cv-11358?
US7746804B1 (“Message control protocol in a communications network having repeaters”), assigned to AX WIRELESS, LLC, currently inactive; US7154866B2 (“Message control protocol in a communications network having repeaters”), assigned to AX WIRELESS, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Message control protocol in a communications network having repeaters.
How was case 1:22-cv-11358 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff IoT Licensing, LLC and Defendant Schneider Electric USA, Inc. hereby stipulate to the dismissal of this matter in its entirety. The parties stipulate to dismissal of all Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant with prejudice and dismissal of all Defendant’s counterclaims against Plaintiff without prejudice, with all parties bearing their own costs and attorneys’ fees.”
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 1:22-cv-11358 take?
267 calendar days, from filing on 24 Aug 2022 to closure on 18 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-11358?
Chief Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV presided. Catherine I. Rajwani and Gregory J. Myers are recorded as counsel for plaintiff IOT Licensing. Benjamin J. Bradford, Matthew E. Price and Terrence J. Truax appear for defendant Schneider Pvt.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-11358 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.