Stingray IP Solutions, LLC v. Hewlett-Parkard, Co.
Infringement action filed 28 Oct 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 6 Apr 2026, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US7440572B2US7224678B2US7616961B2
- Case no.
- 2:24-cv-00868
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 28 Oct 2024 – 6 Apr 2026
- Duration
- 525 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Aruba 9200 Series Campus Gateways · Aruba Central SaaS with “Features” including“Wireless services” such as “IoT operations” that provide “at-a-glance views of IoT applicationsand BLE and Zigbee devices on the network” and “HPE Aruba Networking Air Pass” that provides“seamless Wi-Fi connectivity for SIM enabled cellular devices … to enable Wi-Fi calling and to · Bluetooth 6 and 802.15.4 radios for Zigbee · HPE Aruba Networking 7200 Series Mobility Controllers · HPE Aruba Networking 750 Series · HPE Aruba Networking Access Pointswith Wi-Fi and/or Zigbee compatibility · HPE’s ZigBee products include HPE Aruba Networking HPE Aruba Networking 730 Series · IEEE 802.15.4 standard based mobile ad-hoc network · Temporal Key Integrity Protocol TKIP MIC · WPA, WPA2 and WPA3 security mechanism · ZigBee protocols
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
Secure wireless LAN device and associated methods
A secure wireless LAN device includes a housing, a wireless transceiver carried by the housing, a medium access controller (MAC) carried by the housing, and a cryptography circuit carried by the housing and connected to the MAC and the wireless transceiver. The cryptography circuit may encrypt both address and data information for transmission, and decrypt both address and data information upon reception. Accordingly, a higher level of security may be provided. The cryptography circuit may implement an algorithm and use a key to provide a predetermined security level, such as up to Type 1 security, although lower levels may also be implemented. Of course, the secure wireless LAN device may be used with other LAN devices, such as user stations and/or access points, in any of a number of different LAN configurations. The MAC may implement a predetermined wireless LAN MAC protocol. For example, the LAN MAC protocol may be based upon the IEEE 802.11 standard. The device may also include at least one connector carried by the housing for connecting the MAC to at least one of a LAN station and a LAN access point. This connector may be a PCMCIA connector, for example.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 21 Oct 2008
- Est. expiry
- 17 Sep 2025
- Validity challenges
- 2 on record90019818 · EPRIPR2019-01512 · Other · filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DELLMO, RUSSELL · BERGMAN, JAMES · HALL, DAVID W.
- Classification
- H04L9/00H04L9/10H04L12/28H04L12/56
- Prosecution counsel
- Bragalone Olejko Saad PC
- Examiner
- ZIA, SYED A.
Wireless local or metropolitan area network with intrusion detection features and related methods
A wireless local or metropolitan area network may include a plurality of stations for transmitting data therebetween using a media access layer (MAC), where each of the stations has a respective MAC address associated therewith. The wireless network may also include a policing station for detecting intrusions into the wireless network by monitoring transmissions among the plurality of stations to detect frame check sequence (FCS) errors from a MAC address, and generating an intrusion alert based upon detecting a number of FCS errors for the MAC address exceeding a threshold. The policing station may also detect intrusions based upon one or more of failed MAC address authentications, illegal network allocation vector (NAV) values, and unexpected contention or contention-free operation.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 29 May 2007
- Est. expiry
- 20 May 2024
- Validity challenges
- 2 on record90019718 · EPRIPR2019-01631 · filed by Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BILLHARTZ, THOMAS JAY
- Classification
- H04Q7/24G01R31/06G06FH04B7/15H04J3/14H04L12/28H04L12/56H04L29/06H04W8/26H04W12/00H04W24/00H04W28/04H04W74/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Bragalone Olejko Saad PC
- Examiner
- RAO, SEEMA S.
Also asserted in this case
1 moreThe docket lists 3 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining asserted patent are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Stingray IP Solutions, LLC
- Core tech
- H04L9/00H04L9/10H04L12/28H04L12/56
- Counsel
- Andrea Leigh Fair · Brandon V. Zuniga · Jeffrey Ray Bragalone · Marcus Benavides · Mark Douglass · Terry Afif Saad
- Firm
- Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Miller Fair Henry PLLC
Hewlett-Parkard, Co.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Barry Kenneth Shelton · Bradley Dalton Coburn · Melissa Richards Smith · Saranya Raghavan
- Firm
- Gillam & Smith, LLP, Shelton Coburn LLP, Winston Strawn LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrea Leigh Fair | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Brandon V. Zuniga | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jeffrey Ray Bragalone | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Marcus Benavides | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Mark Douglass | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Terry Afif Saad | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Barry Kenneth Shelton | Hewlett-Parkard, Co. | Defendant |
| Bradley Dalton Coburn | Hewlett-Parkard, Co. | Defendant |
| Melissa Richards Smith | Hewlett-Parkard, Co. | Defendant |
| Saranya Raghavan | Hewlett-Parkard, Co. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by Stingray IP Solutions LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 86.) In the Motion, the parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned action with prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant in the abovecaptioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case.”
Case 2:24-cv-00868 · E.D. Tex. · closed 6 April 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 2:24-cv-00868?
2:24-cv-00868 is a patent infringement action brought by Stingray IP Solutions, LLC against Hewlett-Parkard, Co., filed on 28 Oct 2024 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 6 April 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 2:24-cv-00868?
US7440572B2 (“Secure wireless LAN device and associated methods”), assigned to STINGRAY IP SOLUTIONS LLC, currently inactive; US7224678B2 (“Wireless local or metropolitan area network with intrusion detection features and related methods”), assigned to HARRIS CORPORATION, currently inactive; US7616961B2 (“Allocating channels in a mobile ad hoc network”), assigned to HARRIS CORPORATION|STINGRAY IP SOLUTIONS LLC. The record also lists Aruba 9200 Series Campus Gateways, Aruba Central SaaS with “Features” including“Wireless services” such as “IoT operations” that provide “at-a-glance views of IoT applicationsand BLE and Zigbee devices on the network” and “HPE Aruba Networking Air Pass” that provides“seamless Wi-Fi connectivity for SIM enabled cellular devices … to enable Wi-Fi calling and to, Bluetooth 6 and 802.15.4 radios for Zigbee, HPE Aruba Networking 7200 Series Mobility Controllers, HPE Aruba Networking 750 Series, HPE Aruba Networking Access Pointswith Wi-Fi and/or Zigbee compatibility, HPE’s ZigBee products include HPE Aruba Networking HPE Aruba Networking 730 Series, IEEE 802.15.4 standard based mobile ad-hoc network, Temporal Key Integrity Protocol TKIP MIC, WPA, WPA2 and WPA3 security mechanism and ZigBee protocols.
How was case 2:24-cv-00868 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by Stingray IP Solutions LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 86.) In the Motion, the parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned action with prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant in the abovecaptioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear i
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 2:24-cv-00868 take?
525 calendar days, from filing on 28 Oct 2024 to closure on 6 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:24-cv-00868?
Andrea Leigh Fair, Brandon V. Zuniga, Jeffrey Ray Bragalone, Marcus Benavides, Mark Douglass and Terry Afif Saad are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Stingray IP Solutions. Barry Kenneth Shelton, Bradley Dalton Coburn, Melissa Richards Smith and Saranya Raghavan appear for defendant Hewlett-Parkard.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:24-cv-00868 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.