Redwood Technologies, LLC v. Realtek Semiconductor, Corp.
Infringement action filed 25 Mar 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 8 May 2026, with 7 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Case no.
- 6:25-cv-00111
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Robert Pitman
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 25 Mar 2025 – 8 May 2026
- Duration
- 409 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Realtek devices that are compliant with IEEE 802.11n and/or IEEE 802.11ac and/or IEEE 802.11ax and/or IEEE 802.11be and/or Realtek’s mesh devices that are compliant with IEEE 802.11 as well as their components (e.g., hardware, software, and/or firmware), and processes related to the same
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
Transmission method, transmission apparatus, and reception apparatus
A transmission method for transmitting modulation signals of a plurality of channels to the same frequency band from a plurality of antennas. At the time when a symbol used for demodulation is inserted in a channel, in another channel symbol, the same phase and quadrature signals in the in-phase-quadrature plane are made to be zero signals. Thus, a plurality of modulation signals are multiplexed and transmitted and the transmitted multiplexed modulation signals are demultiplexed and demodulated at a reception apparatus, thereby improving the data transmission rate.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 10 Apr 2012
- Earliest priority
- 13 Nov 2001
- Est. expiry
- 13 Nov 2022
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MURAKAMI, YUTAKA · ORIHASHI, MASAYUKI · MATSUOKA, AKIHIKO
- Classification
- H04K1/10H04L27/18H04B1/707H04B1/7073H04B1/711H04B7/06H04B7/08H04J11/00H04J99/00H04L1/06H04L25/02H04L27/26H04L27/36
- Prosecution counsel
- Ascenda Law Group, PC
- Examiner
- TRAN, KHANH C
Method and signal generating apparatus for generating modulation signals
A method and apparatus for generating and transmitting modulation signals includes generating a plurality of modulation signals each of which is to be transmitted from a different one of a plurality of antennas. Each modulation signal includes a pilot symbol sequence and/or a pilot subcarrier including a plurality of pilot symbols used for demodulation. Each of the pilot symbol sequences and/or pilot subcarriers is inserted at the same temporal point in each modulation signal. The pilot symbol sequences and/or pilot subcarriers are orthogonal to each other, each pilot symbol having a non-zero amplitude. The quantity of the plurality of pilot symbols in each pilot symbol sequence and/or pilot subcarrier is greater than a quantity of the plurality of modulation signals to be transmitted. The plural modulation signals are transmitted from the plurality of antennas in an identical frequency band. Each modulation signal includes different transmission data and one of the pilot symbol sequences and/or pilot subcarriers.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 18 Apr 2017
- Earliest priority
- 13 Nov 2001
- Est. expiry
- 13 Nov 2022
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MURAKAMI, YUTAKA · ORIHASHI, MASAYUKI · MATSUOKA, AKIHIKO
- Classification
- H03D1/24H04L27/06H04L1/06H04L27/04H04L27/12H04L27/14H04L25/02H04L29/06H04L5/00H04L27/26H04B7/08H04B7/06H04L27/18H04B7/0413H04B1/707H04B1/7073H04B1/711H04J11/00H04J99/00H04K1/10H04L27/36
- Prosecution counsel
- NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
- Examiner
- GUARINO, RAHEL
Also asserted in this case
5 moreThe docket lists 7 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 5 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US7688901B2Transmission method, transmission apparatus, and reception apparatus
- US7974371B2Communication method and radio communication apparatus
- US8744005B2Method and apparatus for generating modulation signals
- US8873517B2Wireless communication system, wireless communication apparatus, wireless communication method and computer program
- US7664130B2Wireless communication system, wireless communication apparatus, wireless communication method and computer program
Parties of record
Redwood Technologies, LLC
- Core tech
- H04K1/10H04L27/18H04B1/707H04B1/7073
- Counsel
- John Paul Murphy · Jonathan H. Rastegar · Patrick J. Conroy · T. William Kennedy Jr.
- Firm
- Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
Realtek Semiconductor, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jeffrey Lance Johnson · Mark A. Speegle · Robert J. Benson
- Firm
- Baker Botts LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| John Paul Murphy | Redwood Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jonathan H. Rastegar | Redwood Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Patrick J. Conroy | Redwood Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| T. William Kennedy Jr. | Redwood Technologies, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jeffrey Lance Johnson | Realtek Semiconductor, Corp. | Defendant |
| Mark A. Speegle | Realtek Semiconductor, Corp. | Defendant |
| Robert J. Benson | Realtek Semiconductor, Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“On May 8, 2026, the parties dismissed all claims in this case with prejudice by joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), subject to the terms of their agreement entitled “SETTLEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT” and dated April 29, 2026. (Dkt. 29). “Stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) . . . require no judicial action or approval and are effective automatically upon filing.” Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice, (Dkt. 29), is GRANTED, such that all claims asserted in this suit between Plaintiff Redwood Technologies, LLC and Defendant Realtek Semiconductor Corporation are DISMISSED with prejudice, subject to the terms of the parties’ agreement entitled “SETTLEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT” and dated April 29, 2026. As nothing remains to resolve, IT IS ORDERED that the case is CLOSED.”
Case 6:25-cv-00111 · W.D. Tex. · closed 8 May 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 6:25-cv-00111?
6:25-cv-00111 is a patent infringement action brought by Redwood Technologies, LLC against Realtek Semiconductor, Corp., filed on 25 Mar 2025 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 8 May 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 6:25-cv-00111?
US8155224B2 (“Transmission method, transmission apparatus, and reception apparatus”), assigned to REDWOOD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, currently inactive; US9628300B2 (“Method and signal generating apparatus for generating modulation signals”), assigned to REDWOOD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, currently inactive; US7688901B2 (“Transmission method, transmission apparatus, and reception apparatus”), assigned to REDWOOD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; US7974371B2 (“Communication method and radio communication apparatus”), assigned to REDWOOD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; US8744005B2 (“Method and apparatus for generating modulation signals”), assigned to REDWOOD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; US8873517B2 (“Wireless communication system, wireless communication apparatus, wireless communication method and computer program”), assigned to REDWOOD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC; US7664130B2 (“Wireless communication system, wireless communication apparatus, wireless communication method and computer program”), assigned to REDWOOD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. The record also lists Realtek devices that are compliant with IEEE 802.11n and/or IEEE 802.11ac and/or IEEE 802.11ax and/or IEEE 802.11be and/or Realtek’s mesh devices that are compliant with IEEE 802.11 as well as their components (e.g., hardware, software, and/or firmware), and processes related to the same.
How was case 6:25-cv-00111 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “On May 8, 2026, the parties dismissed all claims in this case with prejudice by joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), subject to the terms of their agreement entitled “SETTLEMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT” and dated April 29, 2026. (Dkt. 29). “Stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) . . . require no judicial action or approval and are effective automatically upon filing.” Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice, (Dkt.
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 6:25-cv-00111 take?
409 calendar days, from filing on 25 Mar 2025 to closure on 8 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:25-cv-00111?
Chief Judge Robert Pitman presided. John Paul Murphy, Jonathan H. Rastegar, Patrick J. Conroy and T. William Kennedy Jr. are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Redwood Technologies. Jeffrey Lance Johnson, Mark A. Speegle and Robert J. Benson appear for defendant Realtek Semiconductor.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:25-cv-00111 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.