Uniloc 2017, LLC v. Motorola Mobility, Inc.
Infringement action filed 20 Nov 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 4 Oct 2023, with US7167487B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7167487B2
- Application no.
- US10/151087
- Case no.
- 1:18-cv-01843
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- D. Del.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Delaware
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 20 Nov 2018 – 4 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 1779 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- DROID MAXX 2 User Guide · DROID Mini User Guide · DROID Turbo 2 User Guide · Electronic devices that operate in compliance with HSPA/HSPA+ standardized in UMTS 3GPP Release 6 · Motorola XBOARD 8.2 User Guide · Motorola XOOM LTE User Guide · moto g6 User Guide · moto x4 User Guide · moto z3 User Guide · www.motorola.com · www.motorola.com/moto_care/manuals/ · www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-e-plus-gen-5#specs · www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-g-play-gen-6#specs · www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-x-gen-4 · www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-z-droid-edition · www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-z-gen-3#specs
- Validity challenges
- 6 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
Network with logic channels and transport channels
The invention relates to a network with a first plurality of logic channels with which is associated a second plurality of transport channels,
- which transport channels are provided for transmitting transport blocks formed from packet units of the logic channels,
- wherein a plurality of valid transport format combinations is allocated to the transport channels, which combinations indicate the transport blocks provided for transmission on each transport channel,
- wherein a selection algorithm is provided for selecting the transport format combinations, and
- wherein it is provided that the selection of the transport format combinations is carried out while maintaining a minimum bit rate applicable to the respective logic channel.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 23 Jan 2007
- Earliest priority
- 21 May 2001
- Est. expiry
- 17 Feb 2025
- Validity challenges
- 6 on recordIPR2019-00252 · Other · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2019-01282 · filed by BlackBerry Corp.IPR2019-00744 · filed by MICROSOFT CORPORATIONIPR2019-00222 · Other · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2019-00745 · filed by MICROSOFT CORPORATIONIPR2019-01283 · Other · filed by BlackBerry Corp.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HERRMANN, CHRISTOPH
- Classification
- H04J3/18H04L12/28H04L12/56H04W28/14H04W28/22
- Prosecution counsel
- PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
- Examiner
- PHAM, CHI
Parties of record
Uniloc 2017, LLC
- Core tech
- H04J3/18H04L12/28H04L12/56H04W28/14
- Counsel
- Aaron S. Jacobs · James J. Foster · Kevin Gannon · Paul J. Hayes · Sean T. O’Kelly · Thomas H. Kramer
- Firm
- O’Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC, Offit Kurman
Motorola Mobility, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Lai L. Yip · Martin R. Bader · Michael K. Heins · Nam H. Kim · Philip A. Rovner · Yasamin Parsafar
- Firm
- Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Aaron S. Jacobs | Uniloc 2017, LLC | Plaintiff |
| James J. Foster | Uniloc 2017, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Kevin Gannon | Uniloc 2017, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Paul J. Hayes | Uniloc 2017, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Sean T. O’Kelly | Uniloc 2017, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Thomas H. Kramer | Uniloc 2017, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Lai L. Yip | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Defendant |
| Martin R. Bader | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Defendant |
| Michael K. Heins | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Defendant |
| Nam H. Kim | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Defendant |
| Philip A. Rovner | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Defendant |
| Yasamin Parsafar | Motorola Mobility, Inc. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Plaintiff, Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant, Motorola Mobility LLC (“Defendant”), jointly stipulate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss with prejudice all claims between Plaintiff and Defendant in the above-referenced action and in Civil Actions 18-1842-RGA; 18-1843-RGA and 18-1844-RGA. Plaintiff and Defendant shall each bear their own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs. All other relief requested between the parties should be denied as moot.”
Case 1:18-cv-01843 · D. Del. · closed 4 October 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 1:18-cv-01843?
1:18-cv-01843 is a patent infringement action brought by Uniloc 2017, LLC against Motorola Mobility, Inc., filed on 20 Nov 2018 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 4 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:18-cv-01843?
US7167487B2 (“Network with logic channels and transport channels”), assigned to UNILOC 2017 LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists DROID MAXX 2 User Guide, DROID Mini User Guide, DROID Turbo 2 User Guide, Electronic devices that operate in compliance with HSPA/HSPA+ standardized in UMTS 3GPP Release 6, Motorola XBOARD 8.2 User Guide, Motorola XOOM LTE User Guide, moto g6 User Guide, moto x4 User Guide, moto z3 User Guide, www.motorola.com, www.motorola.com/moto_care/manuals/, www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-e-plus-gen-5#specs, www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-g-play-gen-6#specs, www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-x-gen-4, www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-z-droid-edition and www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-z-gen-3#specs.
How was case 1:18-cv-01843 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff, Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant, Motorola Mobility LLC (“Defendant”), jointly stipulate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss with prejudice all claims between Plaintiff and Defendant in the above-referenced action and in Civil Actions 18-1842-RGA; 18-1843-RGA and 18-1844-RGA. Plaintiff and Defendant shall each bear their own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs. All other relief requested between the parties should be denied as moot.”
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 1:18-cv-01843 take?
1779 calendar days, from filing on 20 Nov 2018 to closure on 4 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:18-cv-01843?
Aaron S. Jacobs, James J. Foster, Kevin Gannon, Paul J. Hayes, Sean T. O’Kelly and Thomas H. Kramer are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Uniloc 2017. Lai L. Yip, Martin R. Bader, Michael K. Heins, Nam H. Kim, Philip A. Rovner and Yasamin Parsafar appear for defendant Motorola Mobility.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:18-cv-01843 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.