THL Holding Company, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
Infringement action filed 9 Feb 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 8 May 2023, with 3 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US11265680B2US11350246B2US8768381B2
- Case no.
- 6:23-cv-00077
- 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
- 9 Feb 2023 – 8 May 2023
- Duration
- 88 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Transferred
- Products & marks
- Wireless device and methods for use in a paging network · Wireless device and methods for use therewith
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
Wireless device and methods for use in a paging network
A wireless device includes a user interface that generates a pairing signal in response to an indication from a user to pair the wireless device to at least one remote device and generates a first location request signal in response to a second indication from a user to locate the at least one remote device. A short-range wireless transceiver communicates RF signals to pair the wireless device to the at least one remote device and that transmits a first RF paging signal to the at least one remote device in response to the location request signal.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 1 Mar 2022
- Est. expiry
- 26 Feb 2030
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2024-00398 · Patentability · filed by Apple, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HOWARD, JOHN W. · CUTLER, RICHARD · KENNARD, ROBERT M.
- Classification
- H04W4/029H04W4/80H04W4/024G08B13/14G08B21/02G08B25/01H04W4/02H04W4/20H04W64/00H04L41/0604
- Prosecution counsel
- GARLICK & MARKISON
- Examiner
- TAYLOR, BARRY W
Wireless device and methods for use therewith
A wireless device includes a user interface that generates a pairing signal in response to an indication from a user to pair the wireless device to at least one remote device and generates a first location request signal in response to a second indication from a user to locate the at least one remote device. A short-range wireless transceiver communicates RF signals to pair the wireless device to the at least one remote device and that transmits a first RF paging signal to the at least one remote device in response to the location request signal.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 31 May 2022
- Est. expiry
- 26 Feb 2030
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordIPR2024-00399 · Patentability · filed by Apple, Inc.IPR2024-00400 · Patentability · filed by Apple, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HOWARD, JOHN W. · CUTLER, RICHARD · KENNARD, ROBERT M.
- Classification
- H04W4/029H04W4/80H04W4/024G08B13/14G08B21/02G08B25/01H04W4/02H04W4/20H04W64/00H04L41/0604
- Prosecution counsel
- GARLICK & MARKISON
- Examiner
- TAYLOR, BARRY W
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
THL Holding Company, LLC
- Core tech
- H04W4/029H04W4/80H04W4/024G08B13/14
- Counsel
- Charles L. Ainsworth · Frank A. Angileri · John S. LeRoy · Marc Lorelli
- Firm
- Brooks Kushman PC, Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth PC
Apple, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Caroline (Carrie) Ann Bader · Eric A. Buresh · Lydia C. Raw · Megan J. Redmond · Melissa Richards Smith
- Firm
- Erise, IP PA, Gillam & Smith LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Charles L. Ainsworth | THL Holding Company, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Frank A. Angileri | THL Holding Company, LLC | Plaintiff |
| John S. LeRoy | THL Holding Company, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Marc Lorelli | THL Holding Company, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Caroline (Carrie) Ann Bader | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
| Eric A. Buresh | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
| Lydia C. Raw | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
| Megan J. Redmond | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
| Melissa Richards Smith | Apple, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“This case is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Divisional Transfer to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. (Dkt. No. 18.) Upon review, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Cause No. 6:23-CV00077-OLG, THL Holding Company, LLC v. Apple, Inc., is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Austin Division, where it shall remain with the undersigned and not be reassigned to a district judge within that division. It is so ORDERED.”
Case 6:23-cv-00077 · W.D. Tex. · closed 8 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-00077?
6:23-cv-00077 is a patent infringement action brought by THL Holding Company, LLC against Apple, Inc., filed on 9 Feb 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 8 May 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 6:23-cv-00077?
US11265680B2 (“Wireless device and methods for use in a paging network”), assigned to THL HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, currently active; US11350246B2 (“Wireless device and methods for use therewith”), assigned to THL HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, currently active; US8768381B2 (“Wireless device and methods for use in a paging network”), assigned to THL HOLDING COMPANY, LLC. The record also lists Wireless device and methods for use in a paging network and Wireless device and methods for use therewith.
How was case 6:23-cv-00077 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “This case is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Divisional Transfer to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. (Dkt. No. 18.) Upon review, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Cause No. 6:23-CV00077-OLG, THL Holding Company, LLC v. Apple, Inc., is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Austin Division, where it shall remain with the undersigned and not be reassigned to a district judge within that division. It is so ORDERED.”
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 6:23-cv-00077 take?
88 calendar days, from filing on 9 Feb 2023 to closure on 8 May 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:23-cv-00077?
Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia presided. Charles L. Ainsworth, Frank A. Angileri, John S. LeRoy and Marc Lorelli are recorded as counsel for plaintiff THL. Caroline (Carrie) Ann Bader, Eric A. Buresh, Lydia C. Raw, Megan J. Redmond and Melissa Richards Smith appear for defendant Apple.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:23-cv-00077 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.