Book a demo

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

Try now
Modulus Systems v. Utovertek | Patent Lawsuit 2:23-cv-00243

Modulus Systems, LLC v. Utovertek Co., Ltd.

2:23-cv-00243 E.D. Tex. Closed US8610573B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 27 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 4 Jun 2026, with US8610573B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US8610573B2
Application no.
US12/558484
Case no.
2:23-cv-00243
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Rodney Gilstrap
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
27 May 2023 – 4 Jun 2026
Duration
1104 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed without Prejudice
Products & marks
Radio frequency module and methods of transmitting/receiving data
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:23-cv-00243, 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
US8610573B2 Active App. US12/558484

Radio frequency module and methods of transmitting/receiving data

A wireless module is configurable by a user to operate in different modes as a transmitter, receiver, transceiver, and repeater. A method of transmitting and receiving data while substantially reducing or eliminating interference from competing frequency bands, including Wi-Fi systems, as well as a method of transmitting data with a high degree of certainty without requiring an acknowledgement receipt, negotiation, or hand-shaking from a down line transceiver, receiver and/or repeater are disclosed.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
17 Dec 2013
Earliest priority
11 Sep 2008
Est. expiry
27 Sep 2032
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G08B13/14
Examiner
NGUYEN, HUNG T.
US8610573B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8610573B2 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

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Cortney AlexanderModulus Systems, LLCPlaintiff
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 Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice (the “Notice”). (Dkt. No. 6). In the Notice, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned case against Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1). Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id. at 1). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case.”

Case 2:23-cv-00243 · E.D. Tex. · closed 4 June 2026
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-00243?

2:23-cv-00243 is a patent infringement action brought by Modulus Systems, LLC against Utovertek Co., Ltd., filed on 27 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 4 June 2026.

Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-00243?

US8610573B2 (“Radio frequency module and methods of transmitting/receiving data”), assigned to ROCHESTER GAUGES, LLC, currently active. The record also lists Radio frequency module and methods of transmitting/receiving data.

How was case 2:23-cv-00243 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice (the “Notice”). (Dkt. No. 6). In the Notice, Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the above-captioned case against Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 1). Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id. at 1). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pe

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-00243 take?

1104 calendar days, from filing on 27 May 2023 to closure on 4 June 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00243?

Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Cortney Alexander is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Modulus Systems.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:23-cv-00243 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00243 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.