TurboCode, LLC v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.
Infringement action filed 21 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota and closed 21 May 2026, with US6813742B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6813742B2
- Application no.
- US09/681093
- Case no.
- 0:26-cv-00515
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Minn.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Minnesota
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 21 Jan 2026 – 21 May 2026
- Duration
- 120 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- mPower MTR 5.3.5, mPower MTR 5.3.0, mPower MTR 5.2.2, mPower MTR 5.2.1, mPower MTR 5.1.4, mPower MTR 5.1.3, and mPower MTR 5.1.1
- 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
- Cyrus A. Morton · David R. Bennett
- Firm
- Direction IP Law, Robins Kaplan, LLP
Multi-Tech Systems, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jason M. Zucchi · Todd Stephen Werner
- Firm
- Avantech Law LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Cyrus A. Morton | TurboCode, LLC | Plaintiff |
| David R. Bennett | TurboCode, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jason M. Zucchi | Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. | Defendant |
| Todd Stephen Werner | Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff TurboCode LLC hereby files this voluntary Notice of Dismissal with 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, TurboCode LLC voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).”
Case 0:26-cv-00515 · D. Minn. · closed 21 May 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 0:26-cv-00515?
0:26-cv-00515 is a patent infringement action brought by TurboCode, LLC against Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., filed on 21 Jan 2026 in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The case closed on 21 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 0:26-cv-00515?
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 mPower MTR 5.3.5, mPower MTR 5.3.0, mPower MTR 5.2.2, mPower MTR 5.2.1, mPower MTR 5.1.4, mPower MTR 5.1.3, and mPower MTR 5.1.1.
How was case 0:26-cv-00515 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff TurboCode LLC hereby files this voluntary Notice of Dismissal with 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, TurboCode LLC voluntarily dismisses this action against Defendant with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1).”
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 0:26-cv-00515 take?
120 calendar days, from filing on 21 Jan 2026 to closure on 21 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 0:26-cv-00515?
Cyrus A. Morton and David R. Bennett are recorded as counsel for plaintiff TurboCode. Jason M. Zucchi and Todd Stephen Werner appear for defendant Multi-Tech Systems.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 0:26-cv-00515 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.