Litigation

Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Jun Saito et al.

terminated - settled

IPR2019-00462

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: USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Filed: 2019-01-04
Terminated: 2019-04-17

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

Defendants (2)

Summary

[[Huawei Technologies Co.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Huawei%20Technologies%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Huawei%20Technologies%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) filed an IPR petition challenging US 7,324,487. The proceeding was terminated as settled on April 17, 2019.

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: 7324487-ipr2019-00462 · edit in Admin

Further reading

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.
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.
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1996)
Claim construction is exclusively the court's job. The Markman hearing is the most consequential single ruling in nearly every patent case — and a defendant's best chance to end the litigation before trial.
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.
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012)
The two-step framework defendants now recite from memory comes from Mayo, not Alice. Mayo is the often-overlooked but doctrinally essential ancestor of every modern § 101 motion.

All resources →