WSOU Investments, LLC v. ZTE, Corp.
Infringement action filed 8 Feb 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 7 Dec 2023, with US8767614B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8767614B2
- Application no.
- US13/516554
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-00136
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 8 Feb 2022 – 7 Dec 2023
- Duration
- 667 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- ZTE Axon 30 · ZTE Axon 30 Ultra
- Validity challenges
- 1 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
Reporting buffering information
A buffer information report can be sent to a system station from a node for relaying communications between at least one user station and the system station. The report is generated based on a report format used for uplink reporting by a user station. An indication is also sent to the system station that the node for relaying has different buffering capabilities than the user station. At the system station the buffering capabilities of the node for relaying can be determined based on the buffer information report and the indication. Communications between the system station and the node for relaying can then be controlled accordingly.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 1 Jul 2014
- Est. expiry
- 1 Feb 2030
- Validity challenges
- 1 on recordIPR2023-00498 · Patentability · filed by ZTE (USA) Inc
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DU, LEI · ZHAO, ZHU YAN · HUANG, MIN · ZHOU, WEI HUA
- Classification
- H04B7/14H04W4/00
- Prosecution counsel
- WSOU Investments, LLC
- Examiner
- HAN, CLEMENCE
Parties of record
WSOU Investments, LLC
- Core tech
- H04B7/14H04W4/00
- Counsel
- Darcy L. Jones · Gregory Phillip Love · Heather S. Kim · John W. Downing · Jonathan K. Waldrop · Marcus A. Barber · Mark D. Siegmund · Melissa Samano Ruiz · Paul G. Williams · Scott Russell Maynard · ThucMinh Nguyen
- Firm
- Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC, Kasowitz Benson Torres, LLP, Rade LLC, Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC
ZTE, Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Lionel M. Lavenue
- Firm
- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Darcy L. Jones | WSOU Investments, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Gregory Phillip Love | WSOU Investments, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Heather S. Kim | WSOU Investments, LLC | Plaintiff |
| John W. Downing | WSOU Investments, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jonathan K. Waldrop | WSOU Investments, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Marcus A. Barber | WSOU Investments, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Mark D. Siegmund | WSOU Investments, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Melissa Samano Ruiz | WSOU Investments, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Paul G. Williams | WSOU Investments, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Scott Russell Maynard | WSOU Investments, LLC | Plaintiff |
| ThucMinh Nguyen | WSOU Investments, LLC | Plaintiff |
| Lionel M. Lavenue | ZTE, Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“Brazos”) and Defendant ZTE Corporation (“Defendant”) hereby stipulate that all claims in this action are hereby dismissed with prejudice. The parties agree that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
Case 6:22-cv-00136 · W.D. Tex. · closed 7 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 6:22-cv-00136?
6:22-cv-00136 is a patent infringement action brought by WSOU Investments, LLC against ZTE, Corp., filed on 8 Feb 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 7 December 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 6:22-cv-00136?
US8767614B2 (“Reporting buffering information”), assigned to WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC, currently active. The record also lists ZTE Axon 30 and ZTE Axon 30 Ultra.
How was case 6:22-cv-00136 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“Brazos”) and Defendant ZTE Corporation (“Defendant”) hereby stipulate that all claims in this action are hereby dismissed with prejudice. The parties agree that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”
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 6:22-cv-00136 take?
667 calendar days, from filing on 8 Feb 2022 to closure on 7 December 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-00136?
Darcy L. Jones, Gregory Phillip Love, Heather S. Kim, John W. Downing, Jonathan K. Waldrop, Marcus A. Barber, Mark D. Siegmund, Melissa Samano Ruiz, Paul G. Williams, Scott Russell Maynard and ThucMinh Nguyen are recorded as counsel for plaintiff WSOU Investments. Lionel M. Lavenue appears for defendant ZTE.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-00136 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.