Litigation

Sonus Networks, Inc. et al. v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd. et al.

settled and dismissed with prejudice

2:18-cv-00155

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: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Filed: 2018-04-18
Terminated: 2019-07-01

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (2)

Defendants (2)

Summary

Sonus Networks, successor-in-interest to Genband, sued Metaswitch in the Eastern District of Texas asserting U.S. 7,990,984. The parties settled through mediation, and the case was dismissed with prejudice on July 1, 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: 7990984-2-18-cv-00155 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness (2014)
Octane Fitness rejected the rigid Brooks Furniture test and restored district-court discretion over fee awards. Together with its companion Highmark, it gave defendants the most realistic post-trial recovery path the modern patent system has produced.
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.
How patent trolls operate (and why the business model works)
A junk patent generates settlement income exactly the same way as a strong one, because nobody pays $1M to test a $200k demand. The mechanics matter because the failure modes — what makes assertion campaigns expensive or risky for the troll — are exactly where defendants find leverage.
The patent litigation lifecycle
Most patent cases never reach trial. A defendant who understands the lifecycle makes better decisions about when to fight, when to settle, and when to invest in IPR — instead of overspending on whatever phase they happen to be in.
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.

All resources →