ZTE Corporation et al. v. Maxell, Ltd.
institution denied- Docket:
- IPR2018-00241
- Filed:
- 2018-01-30
ZTE petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. 6,329,794; the PTAB denied institution on the merits, so the patent survived the validity challenge.
Plaintiff
5 cases as plaintiff.
I'll research ZTE Corporation to verify its profile.
Let me verify the litigation context.
ZTE Corporation (中兴通讯股份有限公司), commonly known as ZTE, is a Chinese telecommunications and information-technology equipment maker headquartered in Shenzhen's Nanshan district. It was founded on February 7, 1985, by Hou Weigui, and incorporated in 1997. It is publicly listed on both the Shenzhen Stock Exchange (000063.SZ) and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (0763.HK). Reported headcount is roughly 65,000–72,000 employees, and trailing revenue has been reported in the RMB 120–135 billion range (roughly US$17–20 billion) in recent fiscal years. No single controlling parent is reported in the sources reviewed.
ZTE designs, develops, manufactures, and sells ICT products and solutions across three reporting segments. Carrier networks covers wireless/RAN and 5G-A equipment, core networks, optical transport (400G OTN), 50G PON access, FTTR, microwave, and telecom software. Government and enterprise supplies servers, storage, data-center switches, distributed databases, cloud computing, and intelligent-computing infrastructure. Consumer covers smartphones (ZTE, nubia, and Red Magic gaming brands), 5G FWA/MBB mobile-internet devices, Wi-Fi 7 home terminals, and cloud PCs. ZTE is a substantial patent holder in its own right.
Litigation posture: In the tracked data ZTE appears once, solely as a defendant (0 plaintiff cases, 1 defendant case) — consistent with an operating company being targeted rather than an assertion entity. The sole tracked matter is a patent-infringement suit brought by Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC (FISI), a Delaware-formed, Centerbridge-backed licensor asserting former BlackBerry USB-charging patents. FISI has filed roughly 20 such suits against handset and accessory makers, and the case was filed in the plaintiff-friendly Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) before being transferred to the N.D. Tex.
Notable case: In Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. ZTE Corporation (originally 2:17-cv-00124, E.D. Tex.; renumbered 3:17-cv-01827, N.D. Tex.), FISI accused ZTE phones (Axon, Axon 7, ZMax, nubia Z9, Maven) and power adapters of infringing several USB-charging patents. ZTE petitioned for inter partes review of several asserted patents, with mixed institution results. The district court denied FISI's motion for partial summary judgment in November 2019; the parties settled in late 2019 and the case was dismissed with prejudice in January 2020.
Watchlist
Email-only, free, anonymous. We'll notify you when ZTE Corporation files another patent-infringement lawsuit. One-click unsubscribe from any alert.
ZTE petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. 6,329,794; the PTAB denied institution on the merits, so the patent survived the validity challenge.
ZTE petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,098,695. The PTAB did not institute the IPR on the merits, and the patent survived the challenge.
ZTE petitioned for inter partes review of US 6,816,491. The PTAB denied institution on the merits, so the '491 patent survived the challenge.
ZTE filed an inter partes review petition against Maxell as one of seven IPR petitions directed to Maxell's asserted patents. The PTAB did not institute the petition on the merits, and the asserted patents survived ZTE's IPR challenges.
ZTE petitioned for inter partes review of U.S. 8,339,493. The PTAB did not institute the petition on the merits.