Quantion LLC v. Asustek Computer, Inc.
Infringement action filed 7 Oct 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 19 Mar 2026, with US7734283B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7734283B2
- Application no.
- US11/321101
- Case no.
- 2:25-cv-01014
- 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
- 7 Oct 2025 – 19 Mar 2026
- Duration
- 163 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Internet accessing method from a mobile station using a wireless network
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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
Internet accessing method from a mobile station using a wireless network
A method for opening a wireless communication session and providing an end-user with a free Internet session after they view customized content associated with a wireless access point (“Hot Spot”). In a preferred embodiment, an end-user opens an Internet browser after selecting an available “Hot Spot” displayed on their wireless device. The wireless device connects with the chosen “Hot Spot”, which then establishes a connection with a management platform controlling authentication and content unique to the “Hot Spot”. The management platform then transmits the content via the “Hot Spot” to the wireless device, where it is displayed until expiration of a pre-determined time. After the display expires, the end-user’s internet session is opened via automatic authentication by the management platform. This authentication can be triggered either by the click of a login button appearing on the wireless device after the display expires, or by mere expiration of the display.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 8 Jun 2010
- Est. expiry
- 31 Mar 2028
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SEBBAN, MICKAEL
- Classification
- H04M11/10H04W4/24H04W74/00H04W76/02H04W80/00
- Prosecution counsel
- ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS LLC
- Examiner
- APPIAH, CHARLES N
Parties of record
Quantion LLC
- Core tech
- H04M11/10H04W4/24H04W74/00H04W76/02
- Counsel
- Isaac Phillip Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
Asustek Computer, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Quantion LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff Quantion LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 9). In the Notice, Plaintiff dismisses the above-captioned action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id. at 1). Defendant ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all of Plaintiff’s claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall 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. So Ordered this”
Case 2:25-cv-01014 · E.D. Tex. · closed 19 March 2026
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 2:25-cv-01014?
2:25-cv-01014 is a patent infringement action brought by Quantion LLC against Asustek Computer, Inc., filed on 7 Oct 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 19 March 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:25-cv-01014?
US7734283B2 (“Internet accessing method from a mobile station using a wireless network”), assigned to QUANTION LLC, currently active. The record also lists Internet accessing method from a mobile station using a wireless network.
How was case 2:25-cv-01014 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff Quantion LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 9). In the Notice, Plaintiff dismisses the above-captioned action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id. at 1). Defendant ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all of Plaintiff’s claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys
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 2:25-cv-01014 take?
163 calendar days, from filing on 7 Oct 2025 to closure on 19 March 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-01014?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Quantion.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-01014 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.