Stingray IP Solutions, LLC v. TP-Link Technologies, Co. et al.
Infringement action filed 18 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and closed 11 Jan 2023, with 4 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US7440572B2US7082117B2US7224678B2US7616961B2
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-07571
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- C.D. Cal.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- California
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 18 Oct 2022 – 11 Jan 2023
- Duration
- 85 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Transferred
- Products & marks
- Allocating channels in a mobile ad hoc network · Mobile ad-hoc network with intrusion detection features and related methods · Secure wireless LAN device and associated methods · Wireless local or metropolitan area network with intrusion detection features and related methods
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.
Mobile ad-hoc network with intrusion detection features and related methods
A mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) may include a plurality of nodes for transmitting data therebetween using a media access layer (MAC), where each of the nodes has a respective MAC address associated therewith. The MANET may also include a policing node for detecting intrusions into the MANET by monitoring transmissions among the plurality of nodes 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 node 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
- 25 Jul 2006
- Est. expiry
- 28 Aug 2022
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- BILLHARTZ, THOMAS JAY
- Classification
- H04Q7/24H04L12/28H04B7/26H04L1/00H04L12/56H04L29/06H04W12/12H04W84/18
- Prosecution counsel
- ADD+G
- Examiner
- PHAM, CHI
Also asserted in this case
2 moreThe docket lists 4 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 2 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Parties of record
Stingray IP Solutions, LLC
- Core tech
- H04L9/00H04L9/10H04L12/28H04L12/56
- Counsel
- Ben M. Davidson · Hunter Scott Palmer · Jeffrey R. Bragalone · Marcus Benavides · Paul C. Stevenson · Paul Jess Abelkop · Terry A. Saad
- Firm
- Bragalone Conroy PC, Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Davidson Law Group ALC
TP-Link Technologies, Co.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew N. Saul · Edward J. Mayle · Kevin M. Bell · Kristopher L. Reed · Steven David Moore · Taylor Jacqueline Pfingst
- Firm
- Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, LLP
- Also named
- TP-Link Corporation Limited · TP-Link International, Ltd.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Ben M. Davidson | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Hunter Scott Palmer | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jeffrey R. Bragalone | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Marcus Benavides | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Paul C. Stevenson | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Paul Jess Abelkop | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Terry A. Saad | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Andrew N. Saul | TP-Link Technologies, Co. | Defendant |
| Edward J. Mayle | TP-Link Technologies, Co. | Defendant |
| Kevin M. Bell | TP-Link Technologies, Co. | Defendant |
| Kristopher L. Reed | TP-Link Technologies, Co. | Defendant |
| Steven David Moore | TP-Link Technologies, Co. | Defendant |
| Taylor Jacqueline Pfingst | TP-Link Technologies, Co. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The petition is granded to the extend that the district court transfer orders on vacated and the court is instructure to recall any case files from the united states district court for the central district of california. The case is remanded for futhur proceedings consistent with this order.”
Case 2:22-cv-07571 · C.D. Cal. · closed 11 January 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 2:22-cv-07571?
2:22-cv-07571 is a patent infringement action brought by Stingray IP Solutions, LLC against TP-Link Technologies, Co., filed on 18 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case closed on 11 January 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:22-cv-07571?
US7440572B2 (“Secure wireless LAN device and associated methods”), assigned to STINGRAY IP SOLUTIONS LLC, currently inactive; US7082117B2 (“Mobile ad-hoc network with intrusion detection features and related 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|STINGRAY IP SOLUTIONS LLC; US7616961B2 (“Allocating channels in a mobile ad hoc network”), assigned to HARRIS CORPORATION|STINGRAY IP SOLUTIONS LLC. The record also lists Allocating channels in a mobile ad hoc network, Mobile ad-hoc network with intrusion detection features and related methods, Secure wireless LAN device and associated methods and Wireless local or metropolitan area network with intrusion detection features and related methods.
How was case 2:22-cv-07571 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “The petition is granded to the extend that the district court transfer orders on vacated and the court is instructure to recall any case files from the united states district court for the central district of california. The case is remanded for futhur proceedings consistent with this order.”
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 2:22-cv-07571 take?
85 calendar days, from filing on 18 Oct 2022 to closure on 11 January 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-07571?
Ben M. Davidson, Hunter Scott Palmer, Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Marcus Benavides, Paul C. Stevenson, Paul Jess Abelkop and Terry A. Saad are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Stingray IP Solutions. Andrew N. Saul, Edward J. Mayle, Kevin M. Bell, Kristopher L. Reed, Steven David Moore and Taylor Jacqueline Pfingst appear for defendant TP-Link Technologies.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-07571 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.