Untitled case

I'll research this case to verify the metadata and build a grounded overview.

Case Overview: Agere Systems Inc. et al. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. et al., No. 5:11-cv-04751 (E.D. Pa.)

Parties and posture. The verified caption is Agere Systems Inc. and LSI Corporation v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. and BarnesandNoble.com LLC, filed July 27, 2011 in the Allentown office of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Lehigh County), before Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, with a jury demand. Agere is the former Lucent Technologies semiconductor-components business, spun off in 2001 and acquired by LSI Corporation in 2007; both entities were named as plaintiffs, apparently because title to different patents in the portfolio sat with different entities after the acquisition. The defendants are the bookseller and its e-commerce affiliate. This is an operating-company assertion, not a PAE suit — but it is an operating company monetizing a legacy component-portfolio against a downstream retailer rather than against the chip supplier whose silicon sits inside the accused device, a pattern that became common in the 2011–2014 e-reader/smartphone wave. The case was closed by settlement roughly three years in; Law360 reported on June 18, 2014 that the parties agreed to end the litigation "according to Monday filings in Pennsylvania federal court." I could not verify the specific dismissal docket entry number, and the settlement terms were not disclosed.

The technology and the patents. The accused products were Barnes & Noble's Nook e-reader line, specifically the device's 3G and Wi-Fi connectivity to Barnes & Noble's online store and its handling of electronic music files; contemporaneous coverage (The Morning Call, July 29, 2011; Law360, July 27, 2011) describes the asserted portfolio as covering "memory and music chip technology" and wireless data-network connection. Eleven patents were asserted at filing — a point worth flagging, because the case metadata here lists only US 5,670,730, which was one member of that larger group rather than the sole patent in suit. The '730 patent, Data Protocol and Method for Segmenting Memory for a Music Chip, issued September 23, 1997 to Anthony James Grewe and Kevin Alan Shelby and assigned to Lucent/Agere, claims a file-format/protocol scheme for flash-memory audio chips: a global header at the start of memory specifying the bit rate and the perceptual audio coding (PAC) algorithm, plus a table-of-contents region holding play times, song titles, artist, and music category, with the header information self-registering when the chip is loaded into a player. In plain terms, it is a data-organization claim about how a portable player knows what audio it is holding and how to decode and index it — not a claim to the codec or the radio.

Why the case matters. Three things make it notable. First, the '730 was a proven patent: in Agere Systems Inc. v. Sony Corp., No. 2:06-cv-00079 (E.D. Tex., Mag. J. Everingham), a Marshall jury on November 17, 2008 found literal infringement, inducement, and willfulness, and awarded an $18.5 million reasonable royalty against Sony's PSP, mylo, and Network Walkman products — the sole patent surviving out of eight originally asserted. A prior jury verdict and a willfulness finding materially raise the settlement value of a follow-on assertion, and the Nook suit reads as an attempt to extend that judgment into the fast-growing e-reader market. Second, the litigation produced a substantive written opinion on patent standing and declaratory-judgment jurisdiction in a parallel Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp. action, which addressed whether LSI or Agere actually owned nine of the ten patents at issue and whether the ownership confusion could be cured by amendment (the court held it could, looking to the amended complaint). That ownership split — a direct artifact of the 2007 Agere/LSI acquisition — is the kind of portfolio-hygiene problem that recurs whenever an operating company transfers a large patent portfolio and then asserts it. Third, the venue choice is analytically interesting: the case was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, not Delaware or the Eastern District of Texas, on the strength of Agere/LSI's substantial Allentown and Hanover Township, Lehigh County operations. That placed a consumer-electronics retailer in a relatively unconventional patent forum and, under then-governing law, was a plaintiff-residence venue that TC Heartland (2017) would later foreclose. The case also ran concurrently with Microsoft's March 2011 Nook/Android suits against Barnes & Noble and its ITC complaint, so the '730 assertion sits inside the broader 2011–2012 convergence of the smartphone patent wars onto e-readers. As to PTAB linkage, I found no verified IPR petition challenging the '730 patent arising from this case; the suit settled in 2014, after the AIA created the IPR regime, but I cannot confirm from available sources whether any petition was filed or contemplated, and that point should be treated as unverified.

Sourcing note. Party names, filing date, judge, division, cause of action, and closed status are confirmed via the PACER-derived docket (Justia Docket No. paedce/5:2011cv04751) and corroborated by Law360 and The Morning Call. The '730 patent's title, issue date, inventors, and claim content are confirmed by the Federal Circuit-adjacent reporting on the Sony verdict and the patent abstract as quoted in Ars Technica and the Southeast Texas Record. The settlement timing rests on Law360's case summary rather than a reviewed docket entry. The list of all eleven asserted patents, the '730's specific accused instrumentalities within the Nook, and the case's claim-construction history were not independently verified and should be confirmed against the docket before being relied on.

I'll research this case. Let me start with the patent and the docket number.

The docket number maps to a real case. Let me dig into the docket, the patents, and the related declaratory judgment action.

Bottom line up front: what this docket actually is

*5:11-cv-04751 is Agere Systems Inc. et al. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. et al., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown Division), filed 2011-07-27, assigned to Judge Lawrence F. Stengel.* Plaintiffs: Agere Systems Inc. and LSI Corporation. Defendants: Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnesandnoble.com LLC. Nature of suit: patent infringement; jury demand by plaintiff. (Justia docket)

Two important qualifications for the case summary you were given:

1. U.S. 5,670,730 (the "'730 patent," Data Protocol and Method for Segmenting Memory for a Music Chip) was only one of eleven patents asserted in this campaign. Press reporting at filing states the suit alleged infringement of 11 patents issued to Agere, LSI, and Lucent covering 3G/Wi-Fi connectivity and music-file processing in the Nook e-readers. (Law360, 2011-07-27; The Morning Call, 2011-07-29) The single-patent tag in the Google Patents litigation database reflects only that the '730 was pleaded — it is not the whole case.
2. *The merits of the '730 patent were litigated in a parallel Northern District of California declaratory-judgment action, Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. 3:11-cv-02709 (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Edward M. Chen)* — which is where the Markman ruling on the '730 occurred. Any account of this case that ignores the N.D. Cal. action will miss the only substantive claim-construction ruling on the patent.

I was able to verify the case identity, the filing, the claim construction, and the 2014 termination, but not the full E.D. Pa. docket (PACER was not directly accessible in this session). Items I could not verify are flagged below rather than filled in.

---

Chronology

2011 — Pre-suit positioning and the race to the courthouse

• 2011-06 (approx.): Barnes & Noble (with BN.com) filed a declaratory judgment action in N.D. Cal., No. 3:11-cv-02709, against LSI, seeking declarations of non-infringement/invalidity and raising affirmative defenses including unenforceability. The N.D. Cal. court later treated that action as the first-filed case relative to the Pennsylvania suit and declined to defer to E.D. Pa. — noting BN's filing was a reasonable effort to "'cut to the chase'" after unproductive licensing negotiations and document delays by LSI. Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2011). (opinion)
• 2011-07-27: Agere and LSI file the E.D. Pa. complaint (5:11-cv-04751) against BN and BN.com, pleading infringement of 11 patents by the Nook, Nook Color and related Nook software/services.

2011–2012 — Pleadings, the first-to-file fight, and two motions to dismiss

• 2011-08-10: BN amends its N.D. Cal. complaint as of right (Dkt. 25), adding BN.com as a plaintiff and Agere as a defendant, plus a DJ claim on the '633 patent and invalidity claims on all patents. (823 F. Supp. 2d 980.)
• 2011-08-29: LSI/Agere file a second motion to dismiss in N.D. Cal. (Dkt. 45) on the same grounds — lack of Article III case or controversy, failure to join a necessary party (Rule 12(b)(7)), and the first-to-file rule, with an alternative motion to transfer premised on forum shopping and convenience. (823 F. Supp. 2d 980.) A prior motion to dismiss (Dkt. 21) raised the same bases.
• 2011 (reported at 823 F. Supp. 2d 980): Judge Chen denies the motions. Key holdings:
  • Subject-matter jurisdiction exists notwithstanding that nine of ten patents were owned by Agere, not LSI; the amendment adding Agere (and BN.com) relates back under Rule 15(c), and the court had jurisdiction from inception because LSI owned at least one asserted patent (the '901/'091 patent — sources differ on the numeral).
  • Rule 12(b)(7) joinder challenge rejected (Agere and BN.com joined).
  • First-to-file: the N.D. Cal. action was first-filed; the court found no bad faith, anticipatory-suit, or forum-shopping exception, and retained the case rather than dismissing or transferring to E.D. Pa.
  • Consequence: the case proceeded on two tracks — the N.D. Cal. DJ action (BN as plaintiff, bearing the burden on invalidity/unenforceability and the construction fight) and the E.D. Pa. infringement action.
• 2012-02-07/08: Judge Chen issues a 28-page order **denying LSI's

I'll research this case. Let me start with several searches.

Bottom line: counsel of record could not be verified

I was unable to identify any attorney as counsel of record for the plaintiff in Case No. 5:11-cv-04751 (E.D. Pa.). I am not going to name any attorney, because I found no source tying any lawyer to this docket, and inventing or inferring counsel here would be fabrication.

What I was able to verify

• Nothing about this specific case. Searches against Justia's E.D. Pa. docket index, general web sources, and patent-family databases did not return the docket sheet, a complaint, an opinion, or any news coverage for a case numbered 5:11-cv-04751.
• The one E.D. Pa. patent hit that surfaced is a different case. Ecore International, Inc. v. Downey et al., No. 5:11-cv-06843 (E.D. Pa., filed Nov. 1, 2011, Allentown Division, before Judge R. Barclay Surrick) is a patent case from the same year and district, but it is not this case — different number, and its asserted patents are unrelated to US 5,670,730. I mention it only to flag it as a false positive, not as a lead.
• US 5,670,730 itself was not confirmed either. My searches for the patent's title and Google Patents record returned only stray citations to the number in third-party patent documents (a PCT search report listing it in a family with EP 0755056, CA 2176982, and JP 9022589, and an EPO publication citing it at [0036]). Those hits are consistent with a 1997-issued U.S. patent with foreign counterparts, but I could not retrieve a title, assignee, or claims. Without those, I cannot even confirm the subject matter or the likely plaintiff, which is normally the starting point for tracing counsel.

Why the search likely failed, and what I would do next

The "" listing you supplied for this case appears to come from a bulk Google Patents litigation dataset, which is known to contain skeletal, sometimes erroneous E.D. Pa. entries. A case number in the 5:11-cv-047xx range from mid-2011 is plausible, but it is equally possible that the number was transcribed incorrectly into that dataset, or that the case was a short-lived complaint that settled or was voluntarily dismissed before any appearance beyond the initial filing — in which case there may be almost no public footprint at all.

Concrete next steps that would resolve this:

1. Pull the docket directly from PACER (E.D. Pa., 5:11-cv-04751). The docket sheet is the only authoritative source for appearances under Local Rule 5.1 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Even a dismissed case will show the initiating attorney's name and bar number on the complaint.
2. Check Bloomberg Law dockets or Lex Machina, both of which index E.D. Pa. civil filings more completely than the free Justia mirror for 2011-era cases.
3. Search for the patent's owner first. Identify the assignee of US 5,670,730 (and any reissue or continuation), then search that entity's litigation history in 2011–2012. If the plaintiff is a company with a small portfolio, the same counsel often appears across its suits, which gives an independent way to cross-check the PACER result.
4. Confirm the patent number against the complaint. If the Google Patents dataset mis-keyed the patent, the real asserted patent may point to a different, findable case.

Explicit caveat on sealed or non-appearing counsel

I cannot rule out that the case was filed with counsel's identity appearing only on a sealed or restricted document, or that this docket number does not correspond to a live case. Either scenario would explain the absence of public records — but absent the PACER docket, that is speculation, not a finding.

If you can supply the PACER docket sheet, the complaint PDF, or the patent title/assignee, I can identify each attorney's name, role, firm, office, and litigation background from primary sources.

I'll research this case. Let me start with several parallel searches.

The case is Agere Systems Inc. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. (E.D. Pa., filed 7/27/2011). Let me dig into the docket and counsel.

Bottom line first

I was able to confirm the case identity and the identity of the defendants, but I could not verify from a primary source who the E.D. Pa. counsel of record for Barnes & Noble are. I am not going to name attorneys for that appearance without a docket entry or court filing to ground it. Below is what is verified, what is strongly inferable, and exactly what remains unconfirmed.

---

1. Verified case identification

Dockets.justia.com: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/pennsylvania/paedce/5:2011cv04751/[429226](/patent/429226)
Law360: https://www.law360.com/pennsylvania/articles/[260892](/patent/260892)/

Note: the case is a mirror/companion to the earlier-filed declaratory judgment action Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. 3:11-cv-02709 EMC (N.D. Cal.), in which Judge Edward M. Chen ruled on the first-to-file dispute. See Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[2116940](/patent/2116940)/barnes-noble-inc-v-lsi-corp/).

---

2. Counsel of record in the E.D. Pa. action — not verified

What I have: The Justia docket page for 5:11-cv-04751 displays a "Represented By" field containing the name Mary Ann Mullaney. I could not confirm (a) which party she appeared for, (b) her firm at the time of appearance, or (c) whether she was lead or local counsel, because the Justia summary page does not expose the underlying ECF entry number, and my access to the full PACER docket and to the underlying pleadings was cut off before I could corroborate her appearance against a filed document.

What I did not find: No court opinion, Law360 article, firm press release, or PACER-derived docket text identifying Barnes & Noble's E.D. Pa. lead counsel in this action.

I am therefore not listing names for the E.D. Pa. appearances. Naming Quinn Emanuel or any Philadelphia firm as B&N's E.D. Pa. counsel of record would be an inference, not a verified fact, and I'm flagging it as such rather than presenting it as sourced.

---

3. Verified counsel in the companion N.D. Cal. action (same defendants, same patent family)

These attorneys did appear for Barnes & Noble, Inc. and barnesandnoble.com LLC in Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. 3:11-cv-02709 EMC (N.D. Cal.), per signed stipulations filed in that case. They are a reliable starting point for identifying B&N's national patent litigation team in this dispute, but their appearance in E.D. Pa. is not confirmed.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP — national/lead counsel to B&N in the N.D. Cal. DJ action

• John B. Quinn (Bar No. 90378) — Los Angeles. Quinn Emanuel's founding partner; one of the most prominent patent trial lawyers in the U.S.
• David Eiseman (Bar No. 114758) — San Francisco. Longtime QE patent litigator; later co-chair of the firm's antitrust/patent intersection work.
• Shon Morgan (Bar No. 187736) — Los Angeles. QE partner, commercial and IP litigation.
• Melissa J. Baily (Bar No. 237649) — San Francisco. Patent litigation partner.
• Carl G. Anderson (Bar No. 239927) — San Francisco. Signed the Rule 26(f) and substitution stipulations as counsel for B&N/BN.com.

Sources: stipulations and orders collected at https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2011cv02709/[241539](/patent/241539) and https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2011cv02709/241539/55

Fenwick & West LLP — counsel to LSI/Agere (the opposing side in N.D. Cal., i.e., the plaintiffs here), listed only to avoid confusion: Charlene M. Morrow, Virginia K. DeMarchi, Hector J. Ribera, Ryan Tyz, Ravi Ranganath, Yixin Zhang (Mountain View).

Local counsel: I could not identify the Pennsylvania firm that would have entered appearance under E.D. Pa. Local Rule 83.5 (which requires a member of the court's bar). This is a genuine gap in my research, not a sealed-filing issue as far as I can tell.

---

4. Sealed filings / non-appearance caveat

There is no indication in anything I found that B&N's appearance was sealed — the docket is a normal public patent case. The gap here is research access, not sealing. Because the E.D. Pa. action was a companion to a first-filed N.D. Cal. declaratory judgment action, it is also possible the E.D. Pa. case was stayed, dismissed, or transferred at an early stage, with a limited E.D. Pa. appearance footprint; I could not verify the disposition. The Justia docket lists the case as closed.

---

5. What to pull to close the gap (5 minutes on PACER)

1. Dkt. 1–10 in 5:11-cv-04751 — the complaint, any motion to dismiss/stay/transfer, and the entry of appearance forms (E.D. Pa. requires separate ECF appearances; each will list firm, address, and bar number).
2. ECF attorney filter on the docket report — sort appearances by party ("Barnes & Noble, Inc." / "barnesandnoble.com LLC") to separate lead from local counsel.
3. Dkt. entry for the Rule 16/26(f) joint report — like the N.D. Cal. stipulations, these carry full signature blocks for both sides and the cleanest counsel roster available.
4. Cross-check the E.D. Pa. case's transfer/stay order, if any, which typically names counsel of record in the body.

---

6. Relevant experience context (verified, for the patent)

The '730 patent has a real trial history: in Agere Systems Inc. v. Sony Corp., No. 2:06-cv-079-CE (E.D. Tex.), a jury on Nov. 17, 2008 found willful literal infringement and induced infringement of the '730 patent by Sony PSP, mylo, and Network Walkman products and awarded $18.5 million in reasonable royalties. Sony's counsel there was Melvin Wilcox III of Yarbrough Wilcox PLLC (Tyler, Tex.); Agere's was Calvin Capshaw of Brown McCarroll LLP (Longview, Tex.). Source: SETexas Record, https://setexasrecord.com/stories/510610231

This is context on the patent, not on the E.D. Pa. defendants' counsel, and should be attributed as such.

---

Confidence summary: Caption, court, judge, filing date, parties, patents, and accused products — high confidence, PACER-derived dockets and contemporaneous press. Companion N.D. Cal. counsel — high confidence, from signed stipulations. E.D. Pa. counsel of record for Barnes & Noble — unverified; do not publish until confirmed against the docket.