Litigation

Prism Technologies LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless

consolidated; '288 withdrawn

8:12-cv-00126-LES-TDT

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: United States District Court for the District of Nebraska

Patents at issue (3)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Prism Technologies LLC

Defendants (1)

Δ Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless

Summary

Prism withdrew the '288 claims in March 2014. The case was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the other carrier actions (Nos. 8:12-cv-122 through 8:12-cv-125).

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: 7290288-8-12-cv-00126-les-tdt · edit in Admin

Further reading

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange (2006)
Pre-eBay, an injunction was a kill switch a patent holder could threaten. Post-eBay, the worst is monetary damages — and for an NPE that wants license fees anyway, the four-factor test usually fails on the irreparable-harm prong.
Lumen View v. FindTheBest (2013-2016): when a defendant fought back, the troll paid
Same patent. Same plaintiff playbook. Different outcome — because the defendant had the resources and the will to fight. Most don't. That's the asymmetry this site is built to fix.
Joint defense groups: economics, formation, and the privilege framework
An NPE sues twenty defendants on one patent. Solo, each faces $3-5M in defense costs. Pooled into a joint defense group, the per-defendant number drops to $200-500K. The economics only work if the privilege framework is set up correctly.
Obviousness under § 103
Most patented inventions are combinations of existing ideas. The modern KSR standard makes those combinations easier to attack than they used to be.
District court vs. PTAB: where to fight a patent challenge
Every defendant who actually fights a patent ends up choosing — sometimes implicitly — between district court invalidity, PTAB IPR, or both in parallel. The trade-offs are not symmetric; the choice often determines the case.

All resources →