RecepTrexx, LLC v. Aruba Networks, LLC
Infringement action filed 17 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 18 May 2023, with US6909706B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6909706B2
- Application no.
- US09/866097
- Case no.
- 6:23-cv-00378
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Orlando L. Garcia
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 17 May 2023 – 18 May 2023
- Duration
- 1 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Multicast wireless ad hoc packet routing
- 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
Multicast wireless ad hoc packet routing
A wireless LAN communications system capable of supporting communications within a multidisciplinary group or team of individuals, comprising a plurality of LAN radios that transmit, receive and route messages. Radios that are within range of each other send messages directly to each other. Radios that are within two hops of each other extract route information from the specific roles within the group and periodic update messages sent by the LAN radios. Radios that are more than two hops from each other use modified ad hoc multicast routing protocols.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 21 Jun 2005
- Est. expiry
- 7 Dec 2023
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- WILMER, MICHAEL E. · RICE, JERRY W. · MEHRANFAR, ROBERT · MURRAY, JOHN · MUNRO, PAUL
- Classification
- H04L12/56H04L12/28
- Prosecution counsel
- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
- Examiner
- VINCENT, DAVID
Parties of record
RecepTrexx, LLC
- Core tech
- H04L12/56H04L12/28
- Counsel
- Isaac Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
Aruba Networks, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Rabicoff | RecepTrexx, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment.”
Case 6:23-cv-00378 · W.D. Tex. · closed 18 May 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 6:23-cv-00378?
6:23-cv-00378 is a patent infringement action brought by RecepTrexx, LLC against Aruba Networks, LLC, filed on 17 May 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 18 May 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:23-cv-00378?
US6909706B2 (“Multicast wireless ad hoc packet routing”), assigned to RECEPTREXX LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Multicast wireless ad hoc packet routing.
How was case 6:23-cv-00378 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff hereby dismisses this action without prejudice. Defendant has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment.”
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 6:23-cv-00378 take?
1 calendar days, from filing on 17 May 2023 to closure on 18 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00378?
Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia presided. Isaac Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff RecepTrexx.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00378 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.