Book a demo

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

Try now
Microelectronic Innovations v. Qorvo | Patent Lawsuit 4:22-cv-00988

Microelectronic Innovations, LLC v. Qorvo, Inc.

4:22-cv-00988 E.D. Tex. Closed 3 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 22 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 29 Jun 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
4:22-cv-00988
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Sean D. Jordan
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
22 Nov 2022 – 29 Jun 2023
Duration
219 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed without Prejudice
Products & marks
Direct addition synthesis of diamond semiconductors · Frequency synthesizer architecture · Power amplification device, in particular for a cellular mobile telephone
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 4:22-cv-00988, 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
US7298218B2 Inactive App. US11/196492

Frequency synthesizer architecture

A frequency synthesizer is provided with a PLL, including a divider by N circuit and a phase generation circuit which is connected to the output of the VCO of the PLL. The phase generation circuit generates a predetermined number of phases synchronized on the frequency of the VCO and at intervals from each other equal to a time difference representative of a phase error measured by a phase comparator of the PLL. A signal generation circuit provides an intermediate signal starting from the phases, the period of which is dependent on the time difference and a first adjustment parameter. The intermediate signal is applied to the divider by N circuit. A correction circuit determines the phase error accumulated during N−1 periods of the intermediate signal and makes a correction of the intermediate signal every N periods of the intermediate signal as a function of the accumulated phase error such that the loop becomes stable.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
20 Nov 2007
Earliest priority
6 Aug 2004
Est. expiry
4 Oct 2025
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H03L7/00H03L7/081H03L7/099H03L7/18
Prosecution counsel
JENKENS & GILCHRIST, PC
Examiner
LEE, BENNY
US7298218B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7298218B2 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 is Plaintiff Microelectronic Innovations, LLC’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice. (Dkt. #22). The motion, ostensibly brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), requests that the case be dismissed without prejudice and provides that each party will bear “their own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.” (Dkt. #22 at 1). The Court will grant the motion. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Microelectronic Innovations, LLC’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice, (Dkt. #22), is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that all claims asserted in this action are DISMISSED without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and fees.”

Case 4:22-cv-00988 · E.D. Tex. · closed 29 June 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 4:22-cv-00988?

4:22-cv-00988 is a patent infringement action brought by Microelectronic Innovations, LLC against Qorvo, Inc., filed on 22 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 29 June 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 4:22-cv-00988?

US7298218B2 (“Frequency synthesizer architecture”), assigned to MICROELECTRONIC INNOVATIONS, LLC, currently inactive; JP7130594B2 (“ダイヤモンド半導体の直接付加合成”), assigned to ロッキード マーティン コーポレイション, currently active; US7177605B2 (“Power amplification device, in particular for a cellular mobile telephone”), assigned to MICROELECTRONIC INNOVATIONS, LLC. The record also lists Direct addition synthesis of diamond semiconductors, Frequency synthesizer architecture and Power amplification device, in particular for a cellular mobile telephone.

How was case 4:22-cv-00988 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Plaintiff Microelectronic Innovations, LLC’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice. (Dkt. #22). The motion, ostensibly brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), requests that the case be dismissed without prejudice and provides that each party will bear “their own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs.” (Dkt. #22 at 1). The Court will grant the motion. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Microelectronic Innovations, LLC’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice, (Dkt. #22), is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that all claims asserted in th

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 4:22-cv-00988 take?

219 calendar days, from filing on 22 Nov 2022 to closure on 29 June 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 4:22-cv-00988?

Chief Judge Sean D. Jordan presided. Alan Arthur Wright, James M. Lennon and Timothy Devlin are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Microelectronic Innovations. Kurt Max Pankratz and Morgan Grissum Mayne appear for defendant Qorvo.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 4:22-cv-00988 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 4:22-cv-00988 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.