TurboCode, LLC v. D-Link, Corp.
Infringement action filed 9 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 28 Jul 2023, with US6813742B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6813742B2
- Application no.
- US09/681093
- Case no.
- 1:22-cv-01160
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 9 Nov 2022 – 28 Jul 2023
- Duration
- 261 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- High speed turbo codes decoder for 3G using pipelined SISO log-map decoders architecture
- Validity challenges
- 2 on record
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
High speed turbo codes decoder for 3G using pipelined SISO log-map decoders architecture
A Bandband Processor for Wireless Communications is presented. The invention encompasses several improved Turbo codes method to provide a more practical and simpler method for implementation a Turbo Codes Decoder in ASIC or DSP coding. (1) A plurality of pipelined pipelined Log-MAP decoders are used for iterative decoding of received data. (2) In a pipeline mode, Decoder A decodes data from the De-interleaver RAM memory while the Decoder B decodes data from the De-interleaver RAM memory at the same time. (3) Log-MAP decoders are simpler to implement in ASIC with only Adder circuits, and are low-power consumption. (4) Pipelined Log-MAP decoders method provide high speed data throughput, one output per clock cycle.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 2 Nov 2004
- Est. expiry
- 15 Dec 2021
- Validity challenges
- 2 on record90016183 · EPR90008089 · EPR · filed by FAY KAPLUN MARCIN,LLP
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- NGUYEN, QUANG
- Classification
- H03M13/29H03M13/00H04L1/00H03M13/45
- Prosecution counsel
- Devlin Law Firm
- Examiner
- DECADY, ALBERT
Parties of record
TurboCode, LLC
- Core tech
- H03M13/29H03M13/00H04L1/00H03M13/45
- Counsel
- Andrew G. DiNovo · Christopher V. Goodpastor · Michael Damian French
- Firm
- DiNovo Price LLP
D-Link, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Christine Yang · David C. Miller · Victoria Hao
- Firm
- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Law Offices of S. J. Christine Yang
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew G. DiNovo | TurboCode, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Christopher V. Goodpastor | TurboCode, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Michael Damian French | TurboCode, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Christine Yang | D-Link, Corp. | Defendant |
| David C. Miller | D-Link, Corp. | Defendant |
| Victoria Hao | D-Link, Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“This Court, having reviewed the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice is GRANTED. All claims by Plaintiff TurboCode LLC against Defendant D-Link Corporation are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear its own fees and costs.”
Case 1:22-cv-01160 · W.D. Tex. · closed 28 July 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-01160?
1:22-cv-01160 is a patent infringement action brought by TurboCode, LLC against D-Link, Corp., filed on 9 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 28 July 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-01160?
US6813742B2 (“High speed turbo codes decoder for 3G using pipelined SISO log-map decoders architecture”), assigned to TURBOCODE LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists High speed turbo codes decoder for 3G using pipelined SISO log-map decoders architecture.
How was case 1:22-cv-01160 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “This Court, having reviewed the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice is GRANTED. All claims by Plaintiff TurboCode LLC against Defendant D-Link Corporation are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party shall bear its own fees and costs.”
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 1:22-cv-01160 take?
261 calendar days, from filing on 9 Nov 2022 to closure on 28 July 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-01160?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Andrew G. DiNovo, Christopher V. Goodpastor and Michael Damian French are recorded as counsel for plaintiff TurboCode. Christine Yang, David C. Miller and Victoria Hao appear for defendant D-Link.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-01160 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.