Litigation

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. v. Technology Properties Ltd. et al.

settled/dismissed

5:08-cv-00884-JF

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal.
Filed: 2008-02-08
Terminated: 2009-02-25

Patents at issue (5)

Plaintiffs (1)

π ASUSTeK Computer Inc.

Defendants (3)

Summary

ASUSTeK brought a declaratory judgment action naming US 5,440,749, US 5,809,336, US 5,809,623, US 5,809,638, and US 5,784,584; the complaint was amended July 10 and September 23, 2008. The case settled December 18, 2008, and all claims were dismissed February 25, 2009.

Case overview & background

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 5784584-5-08-cv-00884-jf · edit in Admin

Further reading

What to do if you get a patent demand letter
A patent demand letter is a request for money, not a court order. The plaintiff's leverage is your fear; preparation removes it.
The first 30 days after a patent infringement complaint
Most defendants spend the first 30 days reacting. The defendants who do well spend it sequencing — because every move you make in month one shapes the budget, leverage, and exit options for the next two years.
AI prior art search tools: a 2026 buyer's guide for defendants
AI doesn't replace a patent attorney's judgment. It does replace the search step that used to cost $20,000 and take three weeks.
Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
Machine-or-transformation isn't the only § 101 test, business-method patents survived as a category, and the specific Bilski hedging method was unpatentable. The trio of Bilski, Mayo, and Alice gave defendants the modern § 101 motion.
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange (2006)
Pre-eBay, an injunction was a kill switch a patent holder could threaten. Post-eBay, the worst is monetary damages — and for an NPE that wants license fees anyway, the four-factor test usually fails on the irreparable-harm prong.

All resources →