Untitled case

A patent infringement lawsuit, captioned "Untitled case," was filed in the Delaware District Court under case number 1:24-cv-01027 in 2024. The plaintiffs are ThroughTEK Co., Ltd. and its subsidiary ThroughTEK Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., which operate as a patent assertion entity (PAE) focused on P2P connection technology and cloud-based platform architecture for IoT devices. The defendants in this litigation include a consortium of major retailers: Walmart Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Sam's West Inc., Home Depot USA Inc., Ebay Inc., and Micro Center Inc., alongside Reolink Innovation Inc. and Shenzhen Reolink Technology Co. Ltd.. The accused products and services are related to P2P connection technology, particularly within consumer-type video monitoring products like network cameras (IP Cameras).

The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 9,727,655. This patent generally relates to systems and methods for establishing peer-to-peer (P2P) communication links, often utilizing techniques involving identifying information for connecting devices over a network, such as the internet. The procedural posture places this active litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Although a specific judge for this case was not definitively sourced, Judge Gregory B. Williams has presided over related patent infringement cases brought by ThroughTEK against Reolink and retailers in the same district, addressing patent eligibility under Alice. The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, largely due to a significant number of corporations being incorporated in Delaware and the court's experienced patent bench, especially following the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision which impacted patent venue rules.

This case is notable for several reasons. It involves a PAE, ThroughTEK, asserting its patent portfolio against a broad array of major retailers and an electronics manufacturer. The litigation centers on widely used P2P connection technology, which is fundamental to many modern IoT and communication devices. Furthermore, U.S. Patent No. 9,727,655 is currently the subject of an inter partes review (IPR2025-01327) initiated by Unified Patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging its validity. The institution of an IPR signals a significant challenge to the patent's enforceability and could heavily influence the outcome of the district court litigation.

Throughtek Co Ltd v. Walmart Inc. et al. (1:24-cv-01027, D. Del.) - Key Legal Developments

A patent infringement lawsuit asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,727,655 was filed in the Delaware District Court on September 11, 2024, by Throughtek Co Ltd and Throughtek Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd. The defendants in this action include Walmart Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Reolink Innovation Inc., Sam's West Inc., Shenzhen Reolink Technology Co Ltd, Home Depot USA Inc., Ebay Inc., Micro Center Inc., and Costco Wholesale Corporation. As of May 22, 2026, the case is listed as active litigation.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

A parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01327, was filed by Unified Patents challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,727,655. This IPR petition has been instituted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While the institution of the IPR is confirmed, specific details regarding its current status beyond institution, such as a final written decision or settlement, are not publicly available in the search results.

District Court Litigation Developments (1:24-cv-01027):

As of the current date, detailed public information regarding specific legal developments for case 1:24-cv-01027 in the Delaware District Court beyond its initial filing and parties is limited. This includes:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: The complaint was filed on September 11, 2024, by Throughtek Co Ltd and Throughtek Technology (Shenzhen) Co Ltd against the aforementioned defendants. Details regarding the defendants' answers, any counterclaims, or specific dates for these filings are not publicly reported in the available information.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance: No specific pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending the IPR, or motions for summary judgment, have been publicly reported with specific dates or outcomes for this particular case and patent.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: There is no publicly available information indicating that a Markman hearing has occurred or that claim construction outcomes have been issued in this case.
• Discovery Milestones: No specific strategic discovery milestones have been publicly reported for this litigation.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions: The case is still active, and there have been no public reports of trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions.
• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal: The case remains open and active. No public record of a settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal has been found for this specific litigation.

It is important to note that other cases involving Walmart or other patents asserted by ThroughTEK exist (e.g., 1:24-cv-00169 in D. Del. asserting RE47,842, or trade secret litigation against Walmart in other districts), but these are distinct from the case 1:24-cv-01027 involving patent 9727655. The lack of detailed public reporting for 1:24-cv-01027 suggests it may still be in the early stages of litigation, or specific developments have not yet entered the widely accessible public record.

The search results indicate that the case 1:24-cv-01027 in the District of Delaware, filed on September 12, 2024, is indeed "ThroughTEK Co., Ltd. et al v. Reolink Innovation Inc. et al" and involves patent 9727655.

While direct counsel information for this specific case number (1:24-cv-01027) requiring a subscription for RPX Insight, a PacerMonitor entry for a related case, 1:24-cv-00169 in the Delaware District Court, which also lists ThroughTEK Co., Ltd. and ThroughTEK Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. as plaintiffs and Reolink Innovation Inc. among defendants, does provide counsel information. Given the similar parties and the close case numbers (1:24-cv-00169 filed Feb 8, 2024 vs. 1:24-cv-01027 filed Sep 12, 2024), it is highly probable that the same counsel represents the plaintiffs in both cases. The PacerMonitor result for 1:24-cv-00169 specifically lists counsel for ThroughTEK Co., Ltd. and ThroughTEK Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd..

The counsel identified for the plaintiffs in case 1:24-cv-00169 are:

• Gerard M. O'Rourke (O'Kelly & O'Rourke, LLC, Wilmington, DE) - Likely local counsel due to the Wilmington, DE office.
• Justin I. King (WPAT, PC, Vienna, VA) - Likely lead counsel or co-lead counsel.
• Andrew C. Aitken (Aitken Law Offices, Wheaton, MD) - Likely lead counsel or co-lead counsel.

To confirm their roles and experience, I will perform individual searches for each attorney.Based on available public records for the related patent infringement case ThroughTEK Co., Ltd. et al v. Reolink Innovation Inc. et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-00169, which lists the same plaintiffs and defendants in the District of Delaware, the following attorneys are identified as representing the plaintiff(s) ThroughTEK Co., Ltd. and ThroughTEK Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. It is highly probable that the same counsel represents the plaintiffs in the closely numbered case 1:24-cv-01027, given the common parties and subject matter.

The counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) are:

• Gerard M. O'Rourke

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: O'Kelly & O'Rourke, LLC, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: As local counsel in the District of Delaware, Mr. O'Rourke would handle court-specific procedural matters.

• Justin I. King

  • Role: Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel
  • Firm: WPAT, PC, Vienna, VA
  • Note: Mr. King's firm, WPAT, PC, focuses on intellectual property, including patent litigation.

• Andrew C. Aitken

  • Role: Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Aitken Law Offices, Wheaton, MD
  • Note: Aitken Law Offices handles intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement cases.

Due to the limitations of direct PACER access, identifying the precise counsel of record for each defendant in "ThroughTEK Co., Ltd. et al v. Reolink Innovation Inc. et al," Case No. 1:24-cv-01027, in the District of Delaware requires drawing inferences from publicly available information regarding closely related cases and general Delaware patent litigation practices. While no direct docket entries for this specific case detailing defense counsel were found, the following represents the most probable counsel based on extensive related litigation.

The defendants in this case are Reolink Innovation Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Home Depot USA Inc., Micro Center Inc., Walmart Inc., and eBay Inc..

Based on a closely related case, ThroughTEK Co., Ltd. et al v. Reolink Innovation Inc. et al, Case No. 1:24-cv-00169 in the District of Delaware (involving the same plaintiff and several of the same defendants), Fish & Richardson P.C. has been identified as counsel for Reolink Innovation Inc., Amazon.com Inc., and Walmart Inc.. It is highly probable that Fish & Richardson P.C. continues to represent these defendants in the present action given the common parties and subject matter in patent litigation.

Delaware local counsel are required to be registered users of CM/ECF and file all papers in the District of Delaware. While the specific local counsel for 1:24-cv-01027 could not be definitively identified without direct docket access, major intellectual property litigation firms in Delaware frequently serve as local counsel for national firms. These often include:

• Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
• Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
• Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
• Bayard, P.A.
• Morris James LLP
• Ashby & Geddes, P.A.

Probable Counsel for Defendant(s):

Given the information from the related case, the following counsel are likely involved for some defendants:

For Reolink Innovation Inc., Amazon.com Inc., and Walmart Inc. (likely lead counsel):

• Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Potential Attorney (based on related matters): Jessica Wang
    • Role: Lead Counsel (or a significant role in the litigation team). She has served as counsel for Reolink in other patent-related matters in the District of Delaware (e.g., 1-23-cv-00218) and handled technical and discovery issues related to the patent-in-suit in IPR proceedings (IPR2024-00509). [cite: 3 (in prior step)]
    • Firm Location: Fish & Richardson has multiple offices, but their patent litigation teams operate nationally. Specific office for this case is not explicitly stated in publicly available snippets without direct docket access.
    • Relevant Experience: Patent litigation, particularly involving consumer products and technical issues. [cite: 3 (in prior step)]

For all defendants (likely local counsel):

As standard practice in the District of Delaware, local counsel from a Delaware firm would be associated with the lead counsel. Without specific docket entries for 1:24-cv-01027, the individual local counsel cannot be named. However, attorneys from firms such as those listed above (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP; Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.; Bayard, P.A.; Morris James LLP; Ashby & Geddes, P.A.) frequently serve as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the District of Delaware. These attorneys specialize in Delaware court procedures and local rules.

Note: The information above relies on strong inferences from related cases and general knowledge of Delaware patent litigation practice due to the lack of specific, publicly accessible docket entries for counsel appearances in case 1:24-cv-01027.