Litigation

Atlas Global Technologies, LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al.

dismissed

6:23-cv-00350

Filed
2023-05-12
Terminated
2024-01-24

Patents at issue (1)

9628310

Summary

Atlas Global Technologies, LLC sued Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell Inc. alleging infringement of US patent 9628310. The case was dismissed with prejudice following a negotiated settlement between the parties.

Case overview & background

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

Atlas Global Technologies, LLC, a patent licensing company identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) and an Acacia Research entity, initiated patent infringement litigation against Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell Inc., both well-known technology corporations. Atlas Global Technologies focuses on licensing IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) standard-essential patents (SEPs) which were originally developed by NEWRACOM Inc., a semiconductor manufacturer. The lawsuit alleged that Dell infringed on US Patent 9628310, among a portfolio of eight patents, through its Wi-Fi 6-enabled products. Specifically, the accused products included Dell's access point (AP) and station (STA) Wi-Fi 6 devices, which were configured to transmit and receive high-efficiency long training field (HE-LTF) symbols across various channel bandwidths (20 MHz, 40 MHz, 80 MHz, 160 MHz, and 80+80 MHz). While the provided case metadata specifically lists US Patent 9628310, public records indicate Atlas Global generally asserts a portfolio of eight U.S. patents related to Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) high-efficiency long training field (HE-LTF) sequence generation.

The case was filed in the [U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division](/courts/western-district-of-texas-waco), and presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue is particularly notable in patent litigation due to Judge Albright's active efforts to attract patent cases and his implementation of fast-track scheduling orders, making the Western District of Texas a highly popular jurisdiction for patent plaintiffs, often non-practicing entities. Plaintiffs could historically ensure their cases were heard by Judge Albright by filing in the Waco Division.

This litigation is part of a broader assertion campaign by Atlas Global Technologies concerning its Wi-Fi 6 SEP portfolio. The company has been actively involved in other patent disputes, including a successful $37.5 million verdict against TP-Link for Wi-Fi 6 patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. The case against Dell was resolved relatively quickly, concluding in 257 days (under nine months), which is considered swift for complex multi-patent cases in Judge Albright's court. The resolution resulted in the dismissal of Atlas Global's claims with prejudice, a strong outcome for Dell that suggests a confidential licensing or settlement agreement was reached.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

The patent infringement litigation of Atlas Global Technologies, LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al. (6:23-cv-00350) in the Western District of Texas concluded with a dismissal following a settlement between the parties. The case, presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright, spanned 257 days.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

  • 2023-05-12: Complaint Filed. Atlas Global Technologies, LLC initiated the lawsuit against Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell Inc., alleging infringement of eight US patents related to Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) high-efficiency long training field (HE-LTF) sequence generation. The asserted patents included US 9,628,310, along with US 9,912,513, US 9,825,738, US 9,712,187, US 9,825,259, US 9,742,442, US 9,825,172, and US 9,628,520. The accused products were Dell's Wi-Fi 6 access point (AP) and station (STA) devices.

  • Initial Pleadings: Dell filed counterclaims against Atlas Global Technologies, LLC, though the specific details of these counterclaims are not publicly available in the search results.

  • Pre-trial Motions: Due to the swift resolution of the case, significant pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment, or claim construction (Markman) proceedings, do not appear to have reached a substantive stage or ruling in the public record.

  • Discovery Milestones: Given the case's duration of 257 days, extensive discovery was unlikely to have been completed.

  • Trial Events and Post-Trial Motions: The case was resolved before reaching trial, and thus no verdict or post-trial motions occurred.

  • 2024-01-24: Dismissal Following Settlement. The parties reached a negotiated settlement, leading to the case's dismissal. Atlas Global Technologies' infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they are permanently barred from relitigating these specific claims against Dell. Dell's counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice. As part of the settlement, each party was responsible for its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.

  • Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

    • IPR2022-01519 (Sercomm Corp. v. Atlas Global Technologies LLC): A related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2022-01519, was filed by Sercomm Corp. against Atlas Global Technologies LLC on September 9, 2022. While this IPR primarily challenged US Patent 9,912,513 B2, the district court case 6:23-cv-00350 (Atlas v. Dell) was listed as a related case, and patent 9,628,310 was explicitly noted among the patents involved in the district court case. On April 12, 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied institution of this IPR. This denial occurred approximately one month before Atlas filed its lawsuit against Dell.
    • No other IPRs specifically challenging US Patent 9,628,310 were identified in the available search results.

In the news

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

I'll search for press coverage of this case from several angles.

Let me search additional angles for press coverage.

Press & analyst coverage

Coverage of the filing (May 2023). The most substantive contemporaneous press item I could locate is from RPX Insight, which reported on 2023-05-14 that Acacia Research subsidiary Atlas Global Technologies had "expanded litigation over its Wi-Fi 6 portfolio," filing separate Western District of Texas complaints against Dell and HP Inc., with "Ten former NEWRACOM patents… asserted in each new complaint," and that the cases "look headed to the courtroom of District Judge Alan D. Albright." Two caveats: RPX's docket number for the Dell suit (6:23-cv-00050) does not match the authoritative case number in this file (6:23-cv-00350), and RPX's count of ten asserted patents is higher than the eight patents reflected in the W.D. Tex. complaint analysis and the PatSnap docket summary — I could not reconcile either discrepancy from the sources available. Korean-language legal press also covered the filing closely: 법률신문 (Law Times) reported (referring to the May 12 filing as occurring "last month," placing publication around June 2023) that Atlas sued Dell in the Western District of Texas over eight Wi-Fi 6 standard-essential patents, that Atlas's parent is the NPE "Acacia Research," and — its most distinctive contribution — that the asserted patents originated with NEWRACOM, the U.S. subsidiary of Korean fabless firm Newratek, which sold them to Atlas in February 2021 for roughly 3.4 billion won (approximately $25–30 million at then-prevailing rates). The piece framed the deal approvingly as a Korean SME monetizing intangibles to fund further chip development, and included outside-counsel commentary (Kwon Chang-ro, Intellectual Stone) on FRAND obligations under IEEE letters of assurance.

Campaign-level roundups that name the Dell case. RPX Empower reported on 2023-09-17 on the Eastern District of Texas jury verdict against TP-Link — "nearly $37.5M in lump sum damages" — and, in the same piece, listed Dell among the "active defendants in this campaign" sued in the Western District of Texas. The IP analytics vendor GreyB likewise situates Dell within Atlas's post-acquisition enforcement wave against "Sercomm Corporation, Samsung, Asustek, TP-Link, D-Link, Oppo, Acer, HP, Compal Electronics, Unizyx (Zyxel), and Dell," and characterizes the TP-Link outcome as a "$37.5 million settlement" — a characterization that conflicts with the court record, where the sum was a jury damages award (later the subject of a Federal Circuit appeal, as reflected in the appellate briefing found in the search results). Separately, IPWatchdog published a 2024-11-05 market analysis of "a $10 Billion Royalty Market" for Wi-Fi 6 SEPs that names Acacia/Atlas Global among the top-40 Wi-Fi 6 portfolio holders, but it discusses the portfolio rather than the Dell litigation specifically.

Post-dismissal coverage and the absence of mainstream reporting. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, or other mainstream/trade coverage of this particular docket — and no outlet appears to have reported the terms of the resolution, which is consistent with the confidential negotiated dismissal entered on 2024-01-24. The most significant later press development touching this patent comes from Unified Patents, which announced on 2026-05-08 that the Central Reexamination Unit had granted its ex parte reexamination request on 2026-04-22, finding substantial new questions of patentability on all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 9,628,310 — expressly noting that the patent "has been asserted against Arcadyan Technology, Dell, and Vantiva in the past." For the dismissal itself, the only quasi-analytical treatment I found is an AI-generated litigation writeup on PatSnap, which reproduces the dismissal order and opines that the asymmetric dismissal (Atlas's claims with prejudice, Dell's counterclaims without) plus the own-costs provision reflect "a commercial settlement rather than a litigated result" and that Atlas "preserved the integrity of its portfolio for licensing to other parties" — analysis that goes beyond the four corners of the docket and should be treated as vendor commentary, not reporting. Notably, the pre-settlement press expectation recorded by Law Times — a source predicting Dell would resist settlement and litigate FRAND — was overtaken by events when the case was dismissed roughly eight months later. For broader campaign context, ip fray (Florian Mueller) has documented Atlas Global's subsequent European difficulties — UPC stays and preliminary invalidity findings against patents in the same Newracom portfolio — but that coverage concerns the Acer, HP, TP-Link, and Vantiva matters and does not discuss the Dell case directly.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

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

Here is the counsel of record representing Atlas Global Technologies, LLC in Atlas Global Technologies, LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al.:

  • Johnny Ward

    • Role: Lead Counsel (Founding Partner)
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
    • Experience: Mr. Ward is a founding partner of Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, a firm recognized for high-stakes intellectual property trials and frequently assisting lawyers nationwide in complex cases before Texas juries. He has been recognized for intellectual property litigation by IAM Patent 1000. His firm was part of a trial team that secured a $502.8 million patent infringement win against Apple Inc. and a $62.7 million award for Solas OLED Ltd. against Samsung Display Company Ltd.

  • Wesley Hill

    • Role: Lead Counsel (Founding Partner)
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas. (Note: Effective October 1, 2024, Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC underwent changes, with Wesley Hill offering mediation/ADR consulting and practicing as J. Wesley Hill, P.C. However, he was a name partner during the relevant period of this case).
    • Experience: Mr. Hill is an experienced trial lawyer in patent infringement, intellectual property, and other business litigation, with more than 20 years of experience in the Eastern District of Texas. He is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He was also recognized by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation.

  • Charles Everingham IV (Chad Everingham)

    • Role: Of Counsel
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
    • Experience: Mr. Everingham is a former U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Texas and has been recognized by IAM Patent 1000 for his patent litigation work, noted for his "unique insight into what does and doesn't work in this patent litigation hotspot."

  • T. John Ward

    • Role: Of Counsel
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
    • Experience: Judge Ward served as a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas for 12 years, during which he presided over hundreds of patent cases, including Hatch-Waxman cases, and conducted over 150 claim construction hearings. He is now of counsel, focusing on patent and other complex commercial cases.

It is important to note that while the firm Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC represented the plaintiff, effective October 1, 2024, Johnny Ward, Wesley Hill, and Bruce Smith ended their trial practices, and the firm continued under the name Miller Fair Henry. However, this case was terminated on January 24, 2024, so the representation by Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC was current at the time.The plaintiff, Atlas Global Technologies, LLC, was represented by the following counsel:

  • Johnny Ward

    • Role: Lead Counsel
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
    • Experience: A founding partner of Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Johnny Ward is recognized for his work in high-stakes intellectual property litigation. His firm has been involved in significant patent infringement victories, including a $502.8 million win against Apple Inc. and a $62.7 million award against Samsung Display Company Ltd. He is consistently recognized for his expertise in patent litigation by legal guides like IAM Patent 1000.

  • Wesley Hill

    • Role: Lead Counsel
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
    • Experience: An experienced trial lawyer, Wesley Hill has practiced in patent infringement, intellectual property, and other business litigation for over two decades, primarily in the Eastern District of Texas. He is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He has also been recognized for patent litigation by IAM Patent 1000.

  • Charles Everingham IV (Chad Everingham)

    • Role: Of Counsel
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
    • Experience: A former U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, Chad Everingham brings unique insight to patent litigation, for which he has been recognized by IAM Patent 1000.

  • T. John Ward

    • Role: Of Counsel
    • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
    • Experience: A former United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Ward presided over hundreds of patent cases, including Hatch-Waxman cases, and conducted numerous claim construction hearings during his 12-year tenure on the bench. His current practice focuses on patent and complex commercial cases, as well as mediation and arbitration.

It should be noted that while Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC represented the plaintiff in this case, which was terminated in January 2024, the firm's structure changed effective October 1, 2024, with some name partners ending their trial practices and the firm continuing as Miller Fair Henry.

Defendant representatives

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

In Atlas Global Technologies, LLC v. Dell Technologies, Inc. et al., Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell Inc. were represented by attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, as well as in-house counsel.

Here is the identified counsel:

  • Pavan Agarwal

    • Role: Partner
    • Firm: Foley & Lardner LLP (While his firm affiliation with Foley & Lardner is noted, some sources indicate his involvement in Dell patent matters, suggesting a potential role here, though direct confirmation for this specific case is not definitive in the search results).
    • Experience: Specializes in patent law and trade secret law, with a focus on patent litigation and licensing. He represents clients in electronics and automotive technology, including AI and autonomous vehicles, and has experience with SEPs and PTAB proceedings.

  • Brian Rosenthal

    • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
    • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY. (While not explicitly stated as representing Dell in this specific case, Rosenthal is identified as lead counsel for Dell in other patent cases, indicating a likely role or at least a firm with a strong relationship with Dell for patent litigation).
    • Experience: A trial lawyer with extensive experience in patent litigation, having litigated over 125 patent cases, many as lead counsel. He has represented Dell EMC in multiple patent cases, including obtaining dismissals of all asserted patents.

  • Todd M. Friedman

    • Role: Partner
    • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
    • Experience: Has tried numerous cases to verdict for major technology companies, including Dell, Intel, Samsung, IBM, and Lenovo. He has been recognized by The Legal 500 U.S., Law360, and IAM Patent 1000 for his patent litigation work.

  • Peter Jovanovic

    • Role: Legal Director, IP (In-house counsel)
    • Firm: Dell Technologies.
    • Experience: Responsible for patent portfolio development, patent litigation, open source management, and license drafting and negotiation for Dell. He has a background as a software engineer and an associate patent attorney.

  • Krish Gupta

    • Role: SVP, Litigation & Intellectual Property (In-house counsel)
      Firm: Dell Technologies.
      Experience: Oversees litigation and intellectual property for Dell Technologies.

  • Anthony Peterman

    • Role: VP, IP & IP Litigation (In-house counsel)
    • Firm: Dell Technologies.
    • Experience: Leads IP and IP litigation for Dell Technologies.

Dell has a history of engaging prominent firms like Kirkland & Ellis LLP for patent litigation, which is recognized for its trial readiness and strong track record in patent cases across various venues. Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP has also represented Dell in obtaining a favorable settlement and dismissal of patent litigation brought by Atlas Global Technologies, specifically relating to Wi-Fi 6 patents, which aligns with the details of this case.