Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
XR Communications v. Dell Technologies | Patent Lawsuit 1:22-cv-00861

XR Communications, LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc.

1:22-cv-00861 W.D. Tex. Closed US10715235B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 22 Jun 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 8 Jun 2023, with US10715235B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US10715235B2
Application no.
US15/495539
Case no.
1:22-cv-00861
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Robert Pitman
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
22 Jun 2021 – 8 Jun 2023
Duration
716 days
Basis of termination
Case Dismissed
Products & marks
Directed wireless communication
Validity challenges
6 on record
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:22-cv-00861, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US10715235B2 Inactive App. US15/495539

Directed wireless communication

Disclosed herein are methods and apparatuses configured to direct wireless communication. In some embodiments, a network apparatus is configured to: receive a first signal transmission from a remote station via a first antenna element of an antenna and a second signal transmission from the remote station via a second antenna element of the antenna simultaneously; determine first signal information for the first transmission; determine second signal information for the second transmission, wherein the second signal information is different than the first signal information; determine a set of weighting values based on the first signal information and the second signal information, wherein the set of weighting values is configured to construct one or more beam-formed transmission signals; and generate the one or more beam-formed transmission signals based on the set of weighting values for transmission to the remote station.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
14 Jul 2020
Earliest priority
4 Nov 2002
Est. expiry
3 Nov 2023
Validity challenges
6 on recordIPR2022-01155 · Other · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2022-01353 · Patentability · filed by Amazon.com, Inc.IPR2022-01398 · Patentability · filed by Dell Technologies Inc.IPR2022-00367 · Patentability · filed by APPLE INC.IPR2024-00613 · Patentability · filed by Ericsson, Inc.IPR2022-01362 · Other · filed by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04B7/06H04W72/04H04W16/28H04B7/04H04B17/318H04L12/28H04L12/56
Prosecution counsel
XR Communications, LLC
Examiner
LIU, SHUWANG
US10715235B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10715235B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Defendant

Dell Technologies, Inc.

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Bradley W. Micsky · Brady Randall Cox · Dennis C. Bremer · Lauren N. Griffin · Michael J. Newton · Peter M. Kohlhepp · Philip P. Caspers · William F. Bullard
Firm
Alston & Bird LLP, Alston & Bird LLP (Dallas), Carlson Caspers Vandenburgh & Lindquist PA, Carlson, Caspers, Vandenburgh & Lindquist PA

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“On June 1, 2023, the parties filed a joint and agreed motion to dismiss stating that the parties have resolved their dispute. (Dkt. 84). The Court construes the parties’ motion as a joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). “Stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) . . . require no judicial action or approval and are effective automatically upon filing.” Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013). As nothing remains to resolve, IT IS ORDERED that the case is CLOSED.”

Case 1:22-cv-00861 · W.D. Tex. · closed 8 June 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 1:22-cv-00861?

1:22-cv-00861 is a patent infringement action brought by XR Communications, LLC against Dell Technologies, Inc., filed on 22 Jun 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 8 June 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 1:22-cv-00861?

US10715235B2 (“Directed wireless communication”), assigned to XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Directed wireless communication.

How was case 1:22-cv-00861 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “On June 1, 2023, the parties filed a joint and agreed motion to dismiss stating that the parties have resolved their dispute. (Dkt. 84). The Court construes the parties’ motion as a joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). “Stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) . . . require no judicial action or approval and are effective automatically upon filing.” Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013). As nothing remains to resolve, IT IS ORDERED that the case is CLOSED.”

How long did case 1:22-cv-00861 take?

716 calendar days, from filing on 22 Jun 2021 to closure on 8 June 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-00861?

Chief Judge Robert Pitman presided. Christian W. Conkle, James N. Pickens, Jason M. Wietholter, Marc A. Fenster, Minna Y. Chan, Paul A. Kroeger, Philip X. Wang and Reza Mirzaie are recorded as counsel for plaintiff XR Communications. Bradley W. Micsky, Brady Randall Cox, Dennis C. Bremer, Lauren N. Griffin, Michael J. Newton, Peter M. Kohlhepp, Philip P. Caspers and William F. Bullard appear for defendant Dell Technologies.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:22-cv-00861 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-00861 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.