Defendant

TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.

1 case as defendant.

Company profile

TP-Link Technologies Co. Ltd., commonly known as TP-Link, is a private Chinese technology company founded in 1996 by brothers Zhao Jianjun and Zhao Jiaxing. While originally headquartered in Shenzhen, China, the company underwent restructuring in 2024 and now has global headquarters in the United States (California) and Singapore. TP-Link is a global entity, operating in over 170 countries, and reported having over 26,000 employees globally as of 2019, with approximately 24,000 employees for its US operations as of 2024.

TP-Link is an operating company that manufactures and sells a wide array of networking devices and smart home products. Its product portfolio includes routers, DSL/cable gateways, wireless adapters, switches, wireless access points, mobile hotspots, network-attached storage, and IP surveillance cameras. The company also offers smart home devices under its Kasa Smart and Tapo brands, and mesh Wi-Fi systems under its Deco brand. TP-Link manufactures its products in-house.

The company's patent litigation posture indicates it is primarily an operating company defending against infringement suits. TP-Link Technologies Co. Ltd. has been named as a defendant in all one of its tracked patent litigation cases. The solitary tracked case, Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. TP-Link Corporation Ltd. et al., was filed in the Central District of California on February 8, 2021, with TP-Link as a defendant. This case was initially filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue often favored by plaintiffs, before being transferred to the Central District of California.

Stingray IP Solutions, LLC v. TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd. et al.

Remanded
Docket:
23-102
Terminated:
2023-01-09
Patents:6980537

The Federal Circuit granted Stingray's petition for a writ of mandamus, vacating the district court's transfer orders to the Central District of California and remanding the cases for further proceedings. The Federal Circuit found that a patent infringement defendant's post-suit consent to personal jurisdiction in another state did not defeat the application of Rule 4(k)(2) for establishing jurisdiction.