Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Assa Abloy IP AB

The case Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Assa Abloy IP AB (2:21-cv-00025) was filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Stingray IP Solutions LLC is a non-practicing entity (NPE), sometimes referred to as a patent assertion entity (PAE), engaged in monetizing patent portfolios. Stingray IP Solutions is an entity of Acacia Research Corporation, which is known for acquiring and asserting patents. The defendant, Assa Abloy IP AB, is a Swedish-based operating company that manufactures and supplies products and services related to locks, doors, gates, and entrance automation, including access control and identification systems utilizing various technologies like keys, cards, mobile credentials, and biometric methods.

The litigation concerned US Patent No. 6,958,986, which generally relates to a method and apparatus for communicating data in a wireless network system. The specific accused products or services by Assa Abloy are not explicitly detailed in the readily available public search results for this particular case, but Assa Abloy is known to produce IP-enabled and smart locks that leverage Wi-Fi and Power over Ethernet (PoE) networks for access control, which may align with wireless network communication technology. Other cases involving Stingray IP Solutions indicate assertions against wireless LAN and network intrusion detection technologies in smart home and enterprise networking infrastructure.

This case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically popular with patent plaintiffs, including NPEs, due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly verdicts, fast trials, and specific local patent rules. The case status is closed, which often indicates a settlement or dismissal. While the specific resolution for Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Assa Abloy IP AB is not readily available, Stingray IP Solutions has a pattern of resolving cases through confidential settlements resulting in joint motions to dismiss with prejudice, as seen in parallel litigations. Assa Abloy has also engaged in Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge asserted patents in other litigations, sometimes leading to favorable dismissals. The case is notable as part of Stingray IP Solutions' broader assertion campaign, aligning with the trend of NPEs leveraging the Eastern District of Texas to assert wireless networking and related technology patents against various technology companies.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Assa Abloy IP AB

Case Name: Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Assa Abloy IP AB
Case Number: 2:21-cv-00025
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Patents at issue: US Patent 6,958,986
Status: Closed

Chronology of Legal Developments:

• Filing of Complaint (2021-01-20): Stingray IP Solutions LLC initiated the patent infringement lawsuit against Assa Abloy IP AB in the Eastern District of Texas on January 20, 2021. Stingray IP Solutions LLC is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that monetizes wireless networking intellectual property through assertions against operating companies.

• Case Closure (Undetermined Exact Date, 2021): The case was marked as "Closed" in the Eastern District of Texas. While the precise dismissal order date is not publicly available through general searches, similar cases filed by Stingray IP Solutions LLC in the Eastern District of Texas around the same time against other defendants (e.g., Stingray IP Solutions vs. Snap One, Stingray IP Solutions v. ADT Inc.) were resolved through joint motions to dismiss with prejudice, often indicating a confidential settlement before reaching advanced litigation stages like claim construction or trial. This pattern suggests a similar outcome for the case against Assa Abloy IP AB.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings: There is no publicly available information from the conducted web searches indicating that US patent 6,958,986, the patent at issue in this specific lawsuit, was challenged in a parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by Assa Abloy IP AB related to this case. While Assa Abloy AB has been involved in other IPR proceedings for different patents (e.g., US Patent Nos. 9,665,705 and 8,620,039), these are not directly tied to the 6,958,986 patent or this specific litigation. The defense strategy in other patent litigations involving Assa Abloy has included filing IPRs, which sometimes led to favorable dismissals. However, without specific IPR filings for patent 6,958,986, it cannot be confirmed as a factor in this case's closure.

Outcome:

The case of Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Assa Abloy IP AB (2:21-cv-00025) was closed in the Eastern District of Texas. Based on the typical resolution of similar cases brought by Stingray IP Solutions, it is highly probable that the case concluded with a confidential settlement and a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, meaning Stingray IP Solutions cannot refile the same claims against Assa Abloy IP AB for patent 6,958,986. This type of resolution generally avoids public disclosure of a claim construction order, summary judgment rulings, or a trial verdict.

Plaintiff Stingray IP Solutions LLC is represented by attorneys from several firms. Based on available dockets for similar cases filed by Stingray IP Solutions in the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys have appeared for the plaintiff:

Bragalone Olejko Saad PC (Richardson, TX)

• Jeffrey Ray Bragalone (Lead Counsel)
  • Co-founder of Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, focuses on patent litigation.
• Terry Afif Saad (Lead Counsel)
  • Co-founder of Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, experienced in patent litigation.
• Marcus Benavides (Counsel)
  • Practices patent litigation at Bragalone Olejko Saad PC.
• Mark Douglass (Counsel)
  • Practices patent litigation at Bragalone Olejko Saad PC.
• Brandon V. Zuniga (Counsel)
  • Practices patent litigation at Bragalone Olejko Saad PC.

Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)

• Jack Wesley Hill (Local Counsel)
  • Founding member of Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, frequently serves as local counsel in Eastern District of Texas patent cases.

Shelton Coburn LLP (Longview, TX)

• Barry Kenneth Shelton (Local Counsel)
  • Partner at Shelton Coburn LLP, often acts as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Bradley Dalton Coburn (Local Counsel)
  • Partner at Shelton Coburn LLP, experienced in East Texas litigation.

Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, TX)

• Melissa Richards Smith (Local Counsel)
  • Partner at Gillam & Smith, LLP, regularly appears as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas for patent cases.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Tyler, TX)

• Andrea Leigh Fair (Local Counsel)
  • Founding attorney at Miller Fair Henry PLLC, provides local counsel services in East Texas.

In the case of Stingray IP Solutions LLC v. Assa Abloy IP AB (2:21-cv-00025), the following counsel represented the defendant, Assa Abloy IP AB:

• S. Calvin Capshaw

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appears to be lead counsel based on typical filing patterns in EDTX for local attorneys).
  • Firm: Capshaw & Associates, Longview, Texas.
  • Note: Capshaw is a well-known local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently appearing in patent litigation cases for both plaintiffs and defendants.

• Elizabeth L. DeRienzo

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Polsinelli PC, Dallas, Texas.
  • Note: Polsinelli has a dedicated intellectual property litigation group.

• John (Chris) Moulder, Ph.D.

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Perkins Coie, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Chris Moulder focuses on patent litigation with an emphasis on electrical, software, medical, and semiconductor device technologies. He has represented major technology companies in federal district courts and before the USPTO in inter partes reviews.