Last updated: July 28, 2026
Litigation summary and analysis for DataQuill Limited v. ZTE Corporation (E.D. Texas 2:13-cv-00634)
Executive summary
DataQuill Limited v. ZTE Corporation (E.D. Texas, case no. 2:13-cv-00634) is an E.D. Texas patent dispute brought by DataQuill involving ZTE’s wireless/network equipment. The record publicly indexed in federal court dockets shows this matter proceeded through core case-management stages (complaint filing and early proceedings) and was later terminated without a reported merits judgment in the docket views used for standard public capture. No post-termination appellate disposition is shown in those docket views. A detailed, patent-by-patent infringement/validity analysis cannot be produced from the accessible docket text alone because the asserted patents, claim sets, and substantive rulings are not visible in the limited public snippet of the case index.
What patents are asserted in DataQuill Limited v. ZTE Corporation 2:13-cv-00634?
Which patent numbers are listed in the complaint?
The case index for 2:13-cv-00634, as captured in standard public docket listings, does not expose the asserted patent numbers in the available text view. Without the asserted patent list and the pleadings, claim scope and infringement theory cannot be reconstructed.
Are device categories (e.g., base stations, modems, routers) specified?
The docket listing does not include enough detail to identify the accused products (model numbers), technology standard (LTE, WiMAX, UMTS), or functional elements targeted.
How are infringement contentions framed?
No contentions or claim charts are visible in the accessible docket text, so the litigation posture cannot be tied to specific limitation-level allegations.
What is the procedural posture of 2:13-cv-00634?
When was the complaint filed and who are the parties?
- Case name: DataQuill Limited v. ZTE Corporation
- Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- Docket: 2:13-cv-00634
The publicly indexed docket record confirms party identity and the case number, but does not provide a full chronological event table in the accessible snippet.
What early motions typically drive E.D. Texas outcomes here?
The docket snippet does not show the sequence of Rule 12 motions, transfer motions, claim construction schedules, or venue discovery. A reliable motion-by-motion analysis is not possible from the available text.
How did the case end?
The docket termination status visible in the public index indicates the matter did not culminate in a publicly captured merits judgment (in the limited text view used for standard docket capture). The final disposition type (dismissal with or without prejudice, settlement, or voluntary dismissal) is not exposed in the accessible snippet.
What did the court do on claim construction, summary judgment, and trial?
Was there a Markman order?
The accessible docket text does not include claim construction outcomes.
Was there summary judgment on non-infringement or invalidity?
No summary judgment rulings are visible in the accessible docket text snippet.
Was there a jury trial?
No trial date, verdict, or judgment is visible in the accessible snippet.
What does the docket indicate about settlement versus abandonment?
Is there a settlement agreement referenced on the docket?
The limited public view does not show a settlement agreement reference, a consent judgment, or a stipulated dismissal that can be tied to a settlement.
Do termination notices suggest waiver or licensing resolution?
No such notices appear in the available docket text.
How does this case compare to other DataQuill v. telecom litigation risk?
Is DataQuill’s enforcement strategy pattern-matched to other defendants?
The accessible snippet does not provide cross-case comparative identifiers (asserted patents, claim themes, or recurring defendants).
What does ZTE’s posture suggest in telecom patent disputes?
Without the asserted patents and the procedural record, ZTE’s litigation posture cannot be evaluated for strength signals (e.g., IPR-related stays, KSF motions, or indemnity-triggered settlement risk).
What are the key business and IP implications if DataQuill dismissed without a merits ruling?
Licensing leverage and threat-value
If the docket terminated without a merits decision, the practical impact is usually a credibility question rather than a legal precedent. Without a known reason for termination (settlement vs. dismissal), the business conclusion is constrained.
Downstream effect on other ZTE lines
A dismissed case without a claim construction or judgment does not create a binding interpretation. That means risk transfer depends on whether other cases assert the same patents and whether ZTE treated the dispute as a nuisance-cost or a material threat.
What is the Orange Book status or FDA regulatory relevance?
Is this an Orange Book drug case?
DataQuill v. ZTE is a patent dispute involving telecom equipment and connectivity systems, not an FDA drug product listing dispute. Orange Book status is not a meaningful category for this case.
Key takeaways
- The public docket capture for DataQuill Limited v. ZTE Corporation (E.D. Texas 2:13-cv-00634) confirms case identity and jurisdiction but does not expose asserted patent numbers, infringement theories, or substantive rulings in the accessible text.
- The docket indicates the case did not reach a publicly captured merits judgment in the accessible view.
- Without asserted-patent and order-level docket content, a defensible patent-by-patent validity/infringement analysis cannot be produced.
FAQs
-
Was DataQuill Limited v. ZTE Corporation decided on the merits?
The accessible docket view does not show a publicly captured merits judgment.
-
What asserted patents were at issue in 2:13-cv-00634?
The asserted patent numbers are not visible in the accessible docket snippet.
-
Did ZTE file invalidity or non-infringement motions in this case?
The accessible docket snippet does not list the substantive motion outcomes.
-
Is there an appellate decision related to 2:13-cv-00634?
No appellate disposition is shown in the accessible docket text.
-
Does this case affect regulatory exclusivity (Orange Book, FDA exclusivity)?
No. The dispute is not an FDA drug product exclusivity matter.
References
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas. DataQuill Limited v. ZTE Corporation, No. 2:13-cv-00634 (docket). (Court docket records).
