Tranquility IP, LLC v. Westermo Data Communications, Inc.
Infringement action filed 27 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and closed 17 Feb 2023, with US8272037B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8272037B2
- Application no.
- US10/549465
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-05930
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Ill.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Illinois
- Chief judge
- Manish S. Shah
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 27 Oct 2022 – 17 Feb 2023
- Duration
- 113 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Flexible WLAN access point architecture capable of accommodating different user devices
- 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
Flexible WLAN access point architecture capable of accommodating different user devices
The invention provides an apparatus and a method for improving the control of access by a terminal device in a WLAN environment having an access point for determining whether the device utilizes an IEEE 802.1x protocol by the access point communicating to the device, a packet, whereby if the devices utilizes a IEEE 802.1x protocol the device appropriately responds and otherwise the access point determines that the terminal device protocol does not employ a IEEE 802.1x protocol and selects an authentication mechanism compatible with the terminal device. If the device is not an IEEE 802.1x client, an IP packet filtering is configured to redirect a user HTTP request to a local server, and when the HTTP requests are thereby redirected, the HTTP server presents the terminal device with information specifically related to the browser based authentication.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 18 Sep 2012
- Earliest priority
- 14 Mar 2003
- Est. expiry
- 14 Jan 2029
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ZHANG, JUNBIAO · MATHUR, SAURABH
- Classification
- H04L29/06G06F21/31G06F21/43G06F21/44H04LH04L9/00H04L9/32H04L12/28H04L29/02H04Q11/00H04W12/06H04W48/14H04W80/00H04W84/12
- Examiner
- ZIA, SYED A.
Parties of record
Tranquility IP, LLC
- Core tech
- H04L29/06G06F21/31G06F21/43G06F21/44
- Counsel
- David Randolph Bennett · Steven G. Kalberg
- Firm
- Direction IP law
Westermo Data Communications, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| David Randolph Bennett | Tranquility IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Steven G. Kalberg | Tranquility IP, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff Tranquility IP LLC hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). According to Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Tranquility IP LLC voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).”
Case 1:22-cv-05930 · N.D. Ill. · closed 17 February 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 1:22-cv-05930?
1:22-cv-05930 is a patent infringement action brought by Tranquility IP, LLC against Westermo Data Communications, Inc., filed on 27 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed on 17 February 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-05930?
US8272037B2 (“Flexible WLAN access point architecture capable of accommodating different user devices”), assigned to TRANQUILITY IP LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Flexible WLAN access point architecture capable of accommodating different user devices.
How was case 1:22-cv-05930 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Tranquility IP LLC hereby files this Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). According to Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Tranquility IP LLC voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).”
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 1:22-cv-05930 take?
113 calendar days, from filing on 27 Oct 2022 to closure on 17 February 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-05930?
Chief Judge Manish S. Shah presided. David Randolph Bennett and Steven G. Kalberg are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Tranquility IP.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-05930 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.