Modulus Systems, LLC v. Murata Electronics North America, Inc.

Modulus Systems, LLC, a patent asserter, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Murata Electronics North America, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. While the exact nature of Modulus Systems, LLC beyond patent assertion is not uniformly clear across publicly available information, other entities bearing similar names engage in diverse activities such as technology consulting, automation systems, hazardous material abatement, and digital solutions. In contrast, defendant Murata Electronics North America, Inc. is a well-established operating company, serving as the U.S. arm of a global leader in the manufacturing of passive electronic components and RF modules, supplying a wide array of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) across consumer electronics, automotive, and industrial IoT markets.

The lawsuit centers on alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,610,573, which broadly covers radio frequency (RF) module technology and methods for transmitting and receiving data. Modulus Systems, LLC alleges that Murata's products infringe this patent, specifically impacting Murata's role as a significant manufacturer in the wireless communications hardware and RF module sector. The potential outcome of this litigation could have implications for Murata's product designs and pricing, and may prompt other industry players to review their own RF module sourcing and design practices.

The case, assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, was filed on May 18, 2023, in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Case No. 2:23-cv-00220). Judge Gilstrap is recognized as one of the country's most active and high-volume patent trial judges. The Eastern District of Texas remains a notable venue for patent litigation due to its reputation as a "rocket docket" known for fast adjudication and local rules that have historically been considered plaintiff-friendly, attracting numerous patent cases including those brought by patent assertion entities. Despite the Supreme Court's 2017 TC Heartland decision, which aimed to narrow proper venue, the Eastern District of Texas continues to see patent filings, often predicated on the "regular and established place of business" prong of the patent venue statute. As of the current date, the case is marked as "open" despite a recorded close date of January 30, 2024, with no formal verdict publicly entered, suggesting a potential confidential settlement or ongoing procedural resolution. There is no public information regarding any related inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board concerning the asserted patent in this specific case.

Modulus Systems, LLC v. Murata Electronics North America, Inc. (2:23-cv-00220 E.D. Tex.) is a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Texas concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,610,573. The case, assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, was filed on May 18, 2023, and shows a "closed" date of January 30, 2024, though some records still indicate an "open" status.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2023-05-18: Modulus Systems, LLC filed a complaint against Murata Electronics North America, Inc., asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,610,573. The complaint included Exhibit A (the patent) and Exhibit B (claim chart). The patent pertains to radio frequency module technology and data transmission methods.
  • 2023-05-19: The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
  • 2023-05-19: A summons was issued for Murata Electronics North America, Inc.
  • 2023-05-19: Murata Electronics North America, Inc. was granted an extension to respond to the complaint, with a deadline of July 13, 2023. Docket information indicates that Murata Electronics North America, Inc. was a "Counter Claimant," suggesting counterclaims were likely filed.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • No specific motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR have been publicly detailed in the provided search results as having been filed or ruled upon.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • There is no public record of the case reaching the Markman claim construction stage or of any claim construction order being issued. Given the relatively short duration of the case, it likely did not proceed to this stage.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • No specific strategic discovery milestones are available in the public records provided.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

  • The case did not proceed to trial. There is no recorded verdict, basis of termination, or cost ruling in the public record.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • 2024-01-30: The case was "closed" on this date, approximately 257 days after filing. This swift resolution time for an E.D. Texas patent case suggests an early-stage resolution. While the status is sometimes listed as "open" and the basis for termination is blank, the "closed" date indicates a final disposition occurred. The absence of a recorded verdict and the relatively quick closure are consistent with a confidential settlement or a stipulation of dismissal that may not fully detail the terms in the public docket.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search for PTAB proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 8,610,573 did not yield any active or completed IPR or PGR challenges. Therefore, there were no parallel PTAB proceedings affecting the litigation.

In summary, the case was resolved quickly, likely through a confidential settlement or dismissal, without progressing through claim construction, discovery, or trial. The "closed" date of January 30, 2024, marks the end of the district court proceedings.

Modulus Systems, LLC is represented by attorneys from Kent & Risley LLC and Miller Fair Henry PLLC (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC).

Here's a breakdown of the identified counsel for the plaintiff:

• Cortney Alexander

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Kent & Risley LLC, Alpharetta
  • Note: Identified as an attorney for the plaintiff, Modulus Systems, LLC.

• Claire Abernathy Henry

  • Role: Local Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC), Longview, Texas.
  • Note: Has extensive experience in complex commercial and patent litigation in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. She served as a briefing attorney to the Honorable T. John Ward, former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, and has been involved in dozens of patent trials. She is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Litigation - Intellectual Property and Litigation - Patent.

While other attorneys like Samuel F. Baxter and Jeffrey P. Armstrong are prominent in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, and Michael William Mihelic is a licensed attorney, public records specifically linking them as counsel of record for Modulus Systems, LLC in this particular case are not available.

A recent report indicates that Murata Electronics North America, Inc. has retained Haynes & Boone, LLP, with attorney Jason T. Lao appearing for the defense. Haynes & Boone is a firm known for its deep patent litigation capabilities, suggesting Murata intends to pursue a contested defense strategy.

While the Eastern District of Texas does not have a strict local counsel requirement, it is common practice for out-of-state firms to engage local counsel due to the court's fast-paced "rocket docket" and specific local rules for patent cases. Firms like Klemchuk PLLC, Bloom Legal Network, Davis Firm P.C., and Potter Minton Law Firm are noted for their experience in serving as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas for patent litigation. However, no specific local counsel has been identified for Murata in this particular case based on the available information.

Therefore, the identified counsel for Murata Electronics North America, Inc. is:

• Name: Jason T. Lao
• Role: Appearing Counsel for the Defense
• Firm: Haynes & Boone, LLP
• Office Location: Costa Mesa
• Note on experience: Haynes & Boone is recognized for its deep patent litigation capabilities, indicating a robust defense strategy.