Book a demo

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

Try now
Monarch Networking Solutions v. Juniper Networks | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-00670

Monarch Networking Solutions, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc.

1:23-cv-00670 E.D. Va. Closed 4 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 23 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and closed 3 Oct 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
1:23-cv-00670
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
E.D. Va.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Virgin Islands of the United States
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
23 May 2023 – 3 Oct 2023
Duration
133 days
Basis of termination
Case Transferred
Products & marks
Mechanism for protecting a pseudo-wire · Method of receiving a data packet coming from an IPv4 domain in an IPv6 domain, an associated device, and associated access equipment · Method of receiving a data packet in an IPv6 domain, an associated device and an associated home gateway · Method of routing a data packet in a network and an associated device
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:23-cv-00670, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. 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
US8693369B2 Active App. US12/935040

Method of routing a data packet in a network and an associated device

A method of routing a data packet in a telecommunications network, said packet comprising a primary destination address and a destination port number. On reception of said packet, the following steps are executed: determining a port mask defining a range of port numbers to which the destination port number belongs; selecting an identifier of a destination piece of equipment of the packet from a plurality of equipment identifiers associated with said destination address on the basis of the port mask; and routing the packet to the destination piece of equipment on the basis of said identifier.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
8 Apr 2014
Earliest priority
31 Mar 2008
Est. expiry
20 Apr 2030
Validity challenges
2 on record90015315 · EPRIPR2024-00175 · Patentability · filed by JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04L12/28H04L45/00H04L45/74
Examiner
KIZOU, HASSAN
US8693369B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8693369B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US8130775B2 Active App. US12/528083

Mechanism for protecting a pseudo-wire

A method is provided for setting up at least two pseudo-wires able to broadcast a stream of data, wherein a first pseudo-wire is set up between an input router of a packet-switched network and first output router of the packet-switched network, and a second pseudo-wire is set up between the input router and a second output router of the packet-switched network. A first link of the first pseudo-wire is set up between the first output router and an intermediate router of the packet-switched network. A second link of the second pseudo-wire is set up between the second output router and the intermediate router. A third link of both pseudo-wires is set up between the intermediate router and the input router.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
6 Mar 2012
Earliest priority
26 Feb 2007
Est. expiry
16 Jul 2028
Validity challenges
3 on record90014701 · EPR · filed by THEODORNE M. FOSTER , HAYNES AND BOONE, LLPIPR2020-01226 · filed by Cisco Systems, Inc.IPR2024-00561 · Patentability · filed by JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04L12/28
Examiner
WILSON, ROBERT
US8130775B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8130775B2 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

Monarch Networking Solutions, LLC

Core tech
H04L12/28H04L45/00H04L45/74
Counsel
Alden George Harris · Eric J. Enger · Joseph S. Grinstein · Kyle Stephen Ruvolo · Max Lalon Tribble Jr. · Michael Francis Heim · Robert Allan Bullwinkel · Steven M. Seigel · Steven M. Shepard · Walter Kelley · William Brown Collier Jr.
Firm
Hausfeld LLP, Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP, Susman Godfrey LLP, Susman Godfrey LLP (NA-TX), Susman Godfrey LLP (Seattle WA-NA)
Defendant

Juniper Networks, Inc.

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Jared Weston Newton · Joseph Evans Reed · Kevin Paul Bernard Johnson · Margaret Hsiao-Shia Shyr · Nima Hefazi · Rachael McCracken · Todd Michael Briggs
Firm
Quinn Emanuel Urguhart & Sullivan, LLP (CA-NA), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (DC), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (CA-NA)

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

“This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to transfer venue and Plaintiff’s motion to strike or, in the alternative, to conduct venue discovery. For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion issued this same day. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, to Conduct Venue Discovery (Dkt. 62) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 35) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is GRANTED. This case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.”

Case 1:23-cv-00670 · E.D. Va. · closed 3 October 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 1:23-cv-00670?

1:23-cv-00670 is a patent infringement action brought by Monarch Networking Solutions, LLC against Juniper Networks, Inc., filed on 23 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case closed on 3 October 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 1:23-cv-00670?

US8693369B2 (“Method of routing a data packet in a network and an associated device”), assigned to MONARCH NETWORKING SOLUTIONS LLC, currently active; US8130775B2 (“Mechanism for protecting a pseudo-wire”), assigned to MONARCH NETWORKING SOLUTIONS LLC, currently active; US8451845B2 (“Method of receiving a data packet in an IPv6 domain, an associated device and an associated home gateway”), assigned to MONARCH NETWORKING SOLUTIONS LLC; US8451844B2 (“Method of receiving a data packet coming from an IPv4 domain in an IPv6 domain, an associated device, and associated access equipment”), assigned to MONARCH NETWORKING SOLUTIONS LLC. The record also lists Mechanism for protecting a pseudo-wire, Method of receiving a data packet coming from an IPv4 domain in an IPv6 domain, an associated device, and associated access equipment, Method of receiving a data packet in an IPv6 domain, an associated device and an associated home gateway and Method of routing a data packet in a network and an associated device.

How was case 1:23-cv-00670 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to transfer venue and Plaintiff’s motion to strike or, in the alternative, to conduct venue discovery. For the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion issued this same day. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, to Conduct Venue Discovery (Dkt. 62) is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 35) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is GRANTED. This case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Clerk is dire

What does transfer mean?

A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.

How long did case 1:23-cv-00670 take?

133 calendar days, from filing on 23 May 2023 to closure on 3 October 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00670?

Alden George Harris, Eric J. Enger, Joseph S. Grinstein, Kyle Stephen Ruvolo, Max Lalon Tribble Jr., Michael Francis Heim, Robert Allan Bullwinkel, Steven M. Seigel, Steven M. Shepard, Walter Kelley and William Brown Collier Jr. are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Monarch Networking Solutions. Jared Weston Newton, Joseph Evans Reed, Kevin Paul Bernard Johnson, Margaret Hsiao-Shia Shyr, Nima Hefazi, Rachael McCracken and Todd Michael Briggs appear for defendant Juniper Networks.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-00670 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00670 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.