Litigation

Untitled case

Critical

5:24-cv-00505

Patents at issue (1)

11582343PTAB: discretionary denial

Summary

This is a district court case filed in the North Carolina Eastern District Court under docket 5:24-cv-00505, concerning US patent 11582343. Its current status is Critical.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This patent infringement litigation, case number 5:24-cv-00505, is currently before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The plaintiff, Red Hat, Inc., a software corporation headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, and a subsidiary of International Business Machines Corporation, filed a complaint against Competitive Access Systems, Inc. (CAS). CAS is a Texas-based corporation described as a company that monetizes patents primarily through licensing, not by manufacturing or commercializing products. This characterization suggests CAS operates as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE). The presiding judge for the case is James C. Dever III, with Brian S. Meyers as the referring judge.

The core of the dispute revolves around allegations that Red Hat's products infringe patents related to the Multipath Transmission Control Protocol (MPTCP). CAS specifically asserts U.S. Patent No. 11,582,343, among others, claiming that Red Hat's use of the MPTCP protocol in its software likely increases the speed and reliability of its products. U.S. Patent No. 11,582,343 is titled "Multipath transmission control protocol" and generally relates to a communications device that enhances data bandwidth by directing information through multiple network links. While the prompt specifically asked about 11,582,343, the complaint also asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 11,418,641, 10,868,908, 9,350,649, and 8,861,349, with a total of seven patents being at issue.

This case is particularly notable because Red Hat's complaint includes a claim under the North Carolina Abusive Patent Assertions Act (APAA), alongside a request for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement against CAS's asserted patents. Red Hat alleges that CAS engaged in subjective and objective bad faith in its patent assertions by failing to provide sufficient details or claim charts to support its infringement claims. CAS's motion to dismiss Red Hat's complaint, including the APAA claim, was denied by the district court, allowing the bad-faith assertion claim to proceed. The venue, the Eastern District of North Carolina, is significant due to Red Hat's headquarters in Raleigh, North Carolina, enabling the application of the state's APAA law, which aims to curb "patent trolling" practices. This case highlights the increasing use of state-level anti-troll legislation in patent disputes.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Legal Developments in Red Hat, Inc. v. Competitive Access Systems, Inc.

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-00505, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, concerning U.S. Patent 11,582,343. The case was initiated by Red Hat, Inc. against Competitive Access Systems, Inc..

Chronological Summary of Key Legal Developments:

  • 2024-09-03 – Complaint Filed: Red Hat, Inc. filed a complaint against Competitive Access Systems, Inc., initiating the patent infringement lawsuit.
  • 2024-10-25 – Motion to Dismiss Filed: Defendant Competitive Access Systems, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss, asserting failure to state a claim, lack of personal jurisdiction, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
  • 2024-11-01 – Case Selected for Mediation: The court selected the case for mediation, indicating an early attempt at alternative dispute resolution.
  • Undated – Reassignment Noted: The Clerk of Court noted that the case should have been filed in the Western division of the court and indicated that a reassignment order correcting this error would be entered.

As of the last retrieval of the docket information on June 12, 2025, from Justia Dockets, no further substantive developments such as an answer to the complaint, claim construction orders, or trial events were publicly available. The current posture of the case is active, with the motion to dismiss pending or resolved and potential mediation ongoing or completed, followed by a divisional reassignment.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

A search for parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent 11,582,343 did not yield any active or completed Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) or Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) as of the current date.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The plaintiff in this patent infringement case, Red Hat, Inc., is represented by attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Williams Mullen.

Here is the breakdown of the counsel of record for Red Hat, Inc.:

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

  • Todd M. Friedman
    • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (admitted pro hac vice)
    • Firm & Office: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY
    • Note: Mr. Friedman is a partner in Kirkland & Ellis's intellectual property practice group, focusing on patent litigation across various technologies.
  • Brandon H. Brown
    • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (admitted pro hac vice)
    • Firm & Office: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, San Francisco, CA
    • Note: Mr. Brown is a partner specializing in intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement defense and prosecution.
  • Yimeng Dou
    • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (admitted pro hac vice) (Also listed as having a Notice of Special Appearance for non-district in October 2024.)
    • Firm & Office: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Costa Mesa, CA
    • Note: Ms. Dou's practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, with experience across a range of technologies.

Williams Mullen

  • Richard T. Matthews
    • Role: Local Civil Rule 83.1(d) Attorney for Plaintiff
    • Firm & Office: Williams Mullen, Raleigh, NC
    • Note: Mr. Matthews is an attorney at Williams Mullen, often serving as local counsel in federal court cases in North Carolina.
  • Andrew R. Shores
    • Role: Local Civil Rule 83.1(d) Attorney for Plaintiff
    • Firm & Office: Williams Mullen, Raleigh, NC
    • Note: Mr. Shores is an attorney with Williams Mullen, providing local counsel services in litigation matters.

It is worth noting that an earlier document from September 2025 also lists B. Scott Eidson of Stinson LLP as an attorney for Plaintiff Red Hat, Inc., suggesting there might have been a change or additional counsel involved at different stages of the litigation. However, the more recent August 2025 document for a motion to dismiss lists the Kirkland & Ellis and Williams Mullen attorneys as counsel for Plaintiff Red Hat, Inc.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The defendant in this patent infringement case, 5:24-cv-00505, is Competitive Access Systems, Inc. (CAS).

The following counsel represents Competitive Access Systems, Inc.:

  • Name: Gavin B. Parsons
    • Role: Counsel of record
    • Firm: (Firm information not explicitly provided in the search results for this specific appearance, but generally, attorneys appear under a firm)
    • Office Location: (Not explicitly provided in the search results for this specific appearance)
    • Relevant Experience Note: Gavin B. Parsons filed a Notice of Appearance on behalf of Competitive Access Systems, Inc. on October 25, 2024, in this case. Further details regarding his specific firm and extensive patent litigation experience beyond this appearance were not readily available in the provided search snippets.