MIMO Research, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
Infringement action filed 14 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 6 Feb 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US7046716B1US7091854B1US7305057B1US7433382B1US7133646B1
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-00620
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 14 Jun 2022 – 6 Feb 2023
- Duration
- 237 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- Dual-mode ultra wideband and wireless local area network communications · Multichannel filter-based handheld ultra wideband communications · Multimode and multiband MIMO transceiver of W-CDMA, WLAN and UWB communications · Multiple-input multiple-output wireless sensor networks communications · Spread spectrum based multichannel modulation for ultra wideband communications
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
Dual-mode ultra wideband and wireless local area network communications
A dual-mode ultra wideband (UWB) and wireless local area network (WLAN) communication transceiver is used to implement two disparate systems of UWB and WLAN communications within a single device. During the UWB mode, the communication transceiver sends and receives the UWB signal at very-high data rate with a relative short transmission range. During the WLAN mode, the communication transceiver sends and receives the WLAN signal at a relative low data rate, but with a longer transmission range. Thereby, trade-off benefits of the dual-mode UWB and WLAN communication transceiver can be mutually utilized to achieve seamless wireless broadband communications between two different standards.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 16 May 2006
- Est. expiry
- 20 Jun 2024
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MIAO, GEORGE J.
- Classification
- H04B1/69H04B10/08H04J11/00
- Examiner
- FAN, CHIEH M.
Multiple-input multiple-output wireless sensor networks communications
This invention presents a MIMO wireless sensor networks communication, which is expected to utilize a larger of size sensor nodes in commercial environments, potentially hostile and militarily sensitive environments. Every sensor node of the MIMO sensor networks communication is to support data collection, signal processing and analysis, and transmission fashion. The present invention also develops novel approaches of advanced space-time processing with the MIMO sensor-antenna architecture, spread spectrum, and adaptive communication signal processing that simultaneously exploit temporal and spatial diversity for seamless sensor networks communications, thereby converting spatially distributed sensor nodes into efficient, robust, reliable, and secure wireless sensor networks communications.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 15 Aug 2006
- Est. expiry
- 13 Oct 2024
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MIAO, GEORGE J.
- Classification
- G08B1/08
- Examiner
- LA, ANH V.
Also asserted in this case
3 moreThe docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
MIMO Research, LLC
- Core tech
- H04B1/69H04B10/08H04J11/00G08B1/08
- Counsel
- Daniel P. Hipskind · Dorian S. Berger · Elizabeth L. DeRieux · Erin E. McCracken
- Firm
- Berger & Hipskind LLP, Capshaw DeRieux LLP
Apple, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Catherine Huang · John Michael Guaragna · Sean C. Cunningham · Tiffany C. Miller
- Firm
- DLA Piper US LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Daniel P. Hipskind | MIMO Research, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Dorian S. Berger | MIMO Research, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Elizabeth L. DeRieux | MIMO Research, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Erin E. McCracken | MIMO Research, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Catherine Huang | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
| John Michael Guaragna | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
| Sean C. Cunningham | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
| Tiffany C. Miller | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: (i) all of Plaintiff MIMO Research, LLC’s claims in this action against Apple Inc. shall be dismissed with prejudice; (ii) all of Apple Inc.’s claims and defenses in this action against MIMO Research, LLC shall be dismissed without prejudice; and (iii) each Party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 6:22-cv-00620 · W.D. Tex. · closed 6 February 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 6:22-cv-00620?
6:22-cv-00620 is a patent infringement action brought by MIMO Research, LLC against Apple, Inc., filed on 14 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 6 February 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 6:22-cv-00620?
US7046716B1 (“Dual-mode ultra wideband and wireless local area network communications”), assigned to MIMO RESEARCH, LLC, currently inactive; US7091854B1 (“Multiple-input multiple-output wireless sensor networks communications”), assigned to MIMO RESEARCH, LLC, currently inactive; US7305057B1 (“Multichannel filter-based handheld ultra wideband communications”), assigned to MIMO RESEARCH, LLC; US7433382B1 (“Spread spectrum based multichannel modulation for ultra wideband communications”), assigned to MIMO RESEARCH, LLC; US7133646B1 (“Multimode and multiband MIMO transceiver of W-CDMA, WLAN and UWB communications”), assigned to MIMO RESEARCH, LLC. The record also lists Dual-mode ultra wideband and wireless local area network communications, Multichannel filter-based handheld ultra wideband communications, Multimode and multiband MIMO transceiver of W-CDMA, WLAN and UWB communications, Multiple-input multiple-output wireless sensor networks communications and Spread spectrum based multichannel modulation for ultra wideband communications.
How was case 6:22-cv-00620 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: (i) all of Plaintiff MIMO Research, LLC’s claims in this action against Apple Inc. shall be dismissed with prejudice; (ii) all of Apple Inc.’s claims and defenses in this action against MIMO Research, LLC shall be dismissed without prejudice; and (iii) each Party shall bear its own costs, expenses, 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 6:22-cv-00620 take?
237 calendar days, from filing on 14 Jun 2022 to closure on 6 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-00620?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Daniel P. Hipskind, Dorian S. Berger, Elizabeth L. DeRieux and Erin E. McCracken are recorded as counsel for plaintiff MIMO Research. Catherine Huang, John Michael Guaragna, Sean C. Cunningham and Tiffany C. Miller appear for defendant Apple.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-00620 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.