TurboCode, LLC v. AT&T, Inc.
Infringement action filed 21 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 13 Dec 2023, with US6813742B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US6813742B2
- Application no.
- US09/681093
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-00375
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 21 Aug 2023 – 13 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 114 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Galaxy A11 · LG K4 · Mobile telephones · Pixel 4a · iPhone SE · tablet computers, and/or other devices
- 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 Gerald DiNovo · Christopher V. Goodpastor · Michael D. French
- Firm
- DiNovo Price LLP
AT&T, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Deron R. Dacus
- Firm
- The Dacus Firm PC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Gerald DiNovo | TurboCode, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Christopher V. Goodpastor | TurboCode, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Michael D. French | TurboCode, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Deron R. Dacus | AT&T, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) (the “Motion”) filed jointly by Plaintiff and Defendant. (Dkt. No. 18.) In the Motion, the parties represent that all claims have been resolved and request dismissal of the case with prejudice. (Id. at 1.) The Motion is jointly filed. (Id. at 3.) Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that all claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain, and because the sole member case has been close”
Case 2:23-cv-00375 · E.D. Tex. · closed 13 December 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 2:23-cv-00375?
2:23-cv-00375 is a patent infringement action brought by TurboCode, LLC against AT&T, Inc., filed on 21 Aug 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 13 December 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-00375?
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 Galaxy A11, LG K4, Mobile telephones, Pixel 4a, iPhone SE and tablet computers, and/or other devices.
How was case 2:23-cv-00375 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) (the “Motion”) filed jointly by Plaintiff and Defendant. (Dkt. No. 18.) In the Motion, the parties represent that all claims have been resolved and request dismissal of the case with prejudice. (Id. at 1.) The Motion is jointly filed. (Id. at 3.) Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that all claims and causes of action in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own c
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 2:23-cv-00375 take?
114 calendar days, from filing on 21 Aug 2023 to closure on 13 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00375?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Andrew Gerald DiNovo, Christopher V. Goodpastor and Michael D. French are recorded as counsel for plaintiff TurboCode. Deron R. Dacus appears for defendant AT&T.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00375 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.