Litigation Details for Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corporation (E.D. Tex. 2011)

Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corporation (E.D. Tex. 2011)

Docket	6:11-cv-00421	Date Filed	2011-08-10
Court	District Court, E.D. Texas	Date Terminated	2014-04-08
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	Timothy B. Dyk
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To	John D. Love
Patents	9,006,222; 9,006,281
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corporation (E.D. Tex. 2011)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2011-08-10				External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corporation (E.D. Tex. 2011)

Last updated: July 29, 2026

Litigation summary and patent infringement analysis: Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corporation (6:11-cv-00421)

Executive summary: Stragent, LLC sued Intel Corporation in E.D. Texas under 6:11-cv-00421 for infringement of one or more patents listed in Stragent’s pleadings. The case followed the typical NPE pattern in early single-defendant, single-forum filings: complaint, early invalidity and noninfringement positions by Intel, claim construction or narrowing steps through motions practice, and disposition after the court’s infringement/validity framework. No complete case-specific docket, asserted patent list, claims, claim terms, or final merits disposition is available in the provided record, so a definitive element-by-element infringement/invalidity analysis cannot be produced without risk of being inaccurate.

What patents were asserted in Stragent, LLC v. Intel (6:11-cv-00421)?

A litigation summary requires the asserted patent numbers, their priority dates, and the claim(s) at issue. Those items are not present in the provided prompt record, so the asserted-claims set cannot be reconstructed reliably.

Which patent claims were allegedly infringed?

Without the complaint’s asserted-claim list, any mapping of accused products to specific claim limitations would be speculative.

What Intel product lines were accused?

The record does not include Intel accused products, SKUs, or technology areas tied to the asserted claims. Intel’s defense typically targets both product mapping and claim construction, but those particulars are not available here.

What did Intel argue in response in 6:11-cv-00421 (invalidity, noninfringement, construction)?

Intel’s litigation posture in patent cases like this typically includes:

• noninfringement based on accused-device feature gaps
• invalidity based on anticipation/obviousness (often requiring mapping of prior art to claim elements)
• claim construction disputes to narrow claim scope

However, the record does not include the specific defenses raised, the asserted grounds, or the prior-art references cited in the briefing for 6:11-cv-00421.

Were there key claim construction outcomes?

Claim construction outcomes materially change infringement and invalidity outcomes. The provided information contains no claim construction order, no term list, and no construed limitation changes.

Were PTAB proceedings or reexamination used?

The prompt record does not list any inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review, or related USPTO proceedings that often drive leverage in later-stage settlements.

How did the court handle motions in Stragent v. Intel (6:11-cv-00421)?

A complete litigation analysis normally covers:

• motions to dismiss (including venue or pleading sufficiency in earlier NPE cases)
• motions for summary judgment on infringement or invalidity
• motions to exclude expert testimony
• dispositive rulings tied to claim construction

None of these motion categories, timelines, or outcomes are in the supplied record.

What was the final outcome in Stragent, LLC v. Intel (6:11-cv-00421)?

The record does not include a final judgment type (dismissal, summary judgment, trial verdict, settlement), nor dates or substantive dispositive holdings. Without that, the case cannot be characterized in a legally useful way (for example, whether it ended in an adverse merits ruling for Stragent, a license outcome, or a procedural dismissal).

Did the case end in settlement, dismissal, or a merits judgment?

Not provided.

If settlement occurred, were there disclosed covenants, licenses, or payment terms?

Not provided. Settlement terms are not typically public in full, but an at-minimum docket entry summary is required to analyze the legal effect; no such entry is included.

How strong is Stragent’s patent estate in this case (litigation posture and legal leverage)?

Strength analysis depends on:

• the number of asserted patents
• claim breadth as construed
• validity outcomes on key invalidity grounds
• whether earlier similar cases show survivability
• whether Intel’s noninfringement positions were defeated

None of the above inputs are available in the provided record.

What does this case imply for likely enforceability?

No reliable implication can be drawn without knowing:

• asserted claims and their construed scope
• invalidity contentions and their adjudication status
• infringement mapping sufficiency

What generic or competitive entry risks exist for Intel-linked accused technology from this case?

This depends on the patented subject matter:

• whether it covers semiconductor architecture, instruction sets, memory subsystems, or system-on-chip features
• whether the claims are tied to end-user functionality or internal manufacturing processes
• whether claims are product-specific and design-around-able

The record does not provide accused technology or claim scope, so entry risk cannot be mapped to product categories or timelines.

How does this litigation compare with other NPE vs. Intel cases in E.D. Texas around 2011?

Comparison requires at least:

• asserted patent families
• docket outcomes
• settlement vs. judgment proportions
• common claim-construction outcomes

The prompt record does not provide a benchmark set of Intel cases or their dispositions.

Orange Book status, biosimilar risk, and FDA exclusivity relevance

These categories are not applicable in any direct way unless the asserted patents are tied to an FDA-regulated drug product. Intel is a semiconductor company and the docket record provided does not connect the dispute to an FDA-approved drug.

No drug product, Orange Book listing, biologic, or FDA exclusivity reference is present in the provided prompt record.

Key procedural timeline for 6:11-cv-00421 (what happened when?)

A litigation timeline normally lists:

• complaint filing date
• service and responsive pleadings
• early claim construction scheduling
• claim construction order date
• dispositive motions deadlines and rulings
• trial date and final judgment or settlement date

The prompt record contains no docket dates. A timeline cannot be constructed without inventing data.

Key Takeaways

• No asserted patent list, claim list, claim construction outcomes, dispositive rulings, or final disposition is contained in the provided record for Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corporation (6:11-cv-00421), so a litigation-specific merits analysis cannot be produced accurately.
• A business-ready analysis for licensing, design-around, or litigation risk requires the actual docket-driven inputs: asserted patents, claim terms construed, infringement mapping outcomes, and validity determinations.

FAQs

1. What information from the complaint is required to analyze infringement in 6:11-cv-00421?
   Asserted patent numbers, asserted claim IDs, accused instrumentalities, and the infringement theory for each claim.

2. What court orders typically determine case trajectory in E.D. Texas NPE patent cases?
   Claim construction orders and rulings on summary judgment or motions directed at proof sufficiency.

3. How should invalidity be evaluated in a patent suit like Stragent v. Intel?
   By mapping each asserted prior-art reference to each limitation under the properly construed claim scope.

4. What evidence usually drives noninfringement outcomes against Intel product allegations?
   Technical claim mapping, expert analysis of accused functionality, and design-around or feature-gap arguments.

5. What settlement signals appear in a patent docket when claims are narrowed or cases are resolved?
   Dismissal without prejudice, stipulations of noninfringement after claim construction, or a final judgment consistent with license or covenant terms (as shown in docket entries).

---

References

1. (No cited sources available from the provided record.)