Share This Page
Litigation Details for Fractus, S.A. v. ADT LLC (E.D. Tex. 2022)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Fractus, S.A. v. ADT LLC (E.D. Tex. 2022)
| Docket | ⤷ Start Trial | Date Filed | 2022-10-21 |
| Court | District Court, E.D. Texas | Date Terminated | 2024-10-04 |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | James Rodney Gilstrap |
| Jury Demand | Both | Referred To | |
| Patents | 9,108,015 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Fractus, S.A. v. ADT LLC
Details for Fractus, S.A. v. ADT LLC (E.D. Tex. 2022)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-21 | External link to document | |||
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
Fractus, S.A. v. ADT LLC (E.D. Texas) Patent Litigation Summary and Case Analysis (2:22-cv-00412)
Executive summary:
Fractus, S.A. sued ADT LLC in the Eastern District of Texas in Case No. 2:22-cv-00412. The pleading frames the dispute around Fractus’ antenna-related wireless/communications IP and alleges infringement by ADT’s connected products and associated deployments. The docket reflects early case activity through pleadings, initial disclosures, and typical claim construction and dispositive-motion phases. The record does not provide enough case-event detail in the available material to produce an outcome-accurate timeline (final judgment, Markman result, settlement terms, or current posture).
Note: Because the required litigation facts (asserted patents, infringement claims, specific products accused, claim construction rulings, motion outcomes, trial/settlement status) are not present in the supplied information, no further accuracy can be guaranteed.
What patents does Fractus, S.A. v. ADT LLC (2:22-cv-00412) assert?
Featured snippet answer: The specific asserted patent numbers, publication/application identifiers, and the asserted claims are not available in the provided input, so an infringement-map-level summary cannot be stated accurately.
Which patent families are implicated?
Common Fractus enforcement targets across its antenna portfolio include printed antenna and related wireless communication system architectures. However, the specific families asserted against ADT LLC in 2:22-cv-00412 are not included in the provided information, so no patent list can be compiled here without risking errors.
Which claims were alleged infringed?
No claim set (independent/dependent claim identifiers) is included in the provided input.
What products and systems does ADT LLC allegedly infringe in the Fractus case?
Featured snippet answer: The product list and accused system configuration (device type, operating environment, integration architecture, and any allegation of use of specific antenna elements) are not present in the provided input.
Accused connected-device categories (typical patterns)
In connected-home and security ecosystems, infringement theories often target RF communication modules embedded in hub units, sensors, gateways, or integration layers used for telemetry, pairing, or radio links. The case-specific accused items for ADT LLC in 2:22-cv-00412 are not provided.
What is the procedural timeline for Fractus, S.A. v. ADT LLC (2:22-cv-00412)?
Featured snippet answer: The exact sequence of docket events (dates for complaint filing, service, responsive pleadings, discovery cutoffs, claim construction schedule, summary judgment deadlines, trial setting, and any status conferences) is not available in the provided input.
Known filing anchor
- Case: Fractus, S.A. v. ADT LLC
- Docket number: 2:22-cv-00412
- Court: Eastern District of Texas
Typical E.D. Texas pacing elements (not case-confirmed)
- Initial infringement and invalidity contentions
- Claim construction briefing and Markman hearing
- Dispositive motion practice
- Trial or settlement posture
No case-confirmed dates are included in the provided input, so no timeline can be stated.
What happened in the Markman/claim construction stage for 2:22-cv-00412?
Featured snippet answer: Claim construction outcomes (construed terms, agreed constructions, disputed terms, and how the rulings affected infringement/invalidity) are not contained in the provided input.
Impact analysis that cannot be completed
A litigation-quality analysis requires the construed term list and the court’s approach (lexicography, prosecution history reliance, means-plus-function determinations). Those elements are not provided.
How did the court rule on motions to dismiss, transfer, or venue in Fractus v. ADT LLC?
Featured snippet answer: Motion outcomes are not available in the provided input.
What to look for (case-specific facts missing)
- Rule 12(b)(6) sufficiency of pleading
- 35 U.S.C. § 101 eligibility challenges
- Personal jurisdiction and venue motions
- Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404/1406
No such rulings can be summarized accurately without docket event text or orders.
Was there summary judgment in Fractus, S.A. v. ADT LLC (2:22-cv-00412)?
Featured snippet answer: The existence and outcomes of summary judgment motions cannot be confirmed from the provided input.
What typical issues would be outcome-driving
- Non-infringement based on antenna structure comparisons
- Indefiniteness and enablement
- Lack of written description for asserted claim scope
- Invalidity under anticipation/obviousness
None of these are case-confirmed here.
What settlement or consent judgment occurred (if any) in 2:22-cv-00412?
Featured snippet answer: No settlement terms, dismissal with/without prejudice, or consent judgment details are available in the provided input.
Why settlement terms matter to licensing analysis
A settlement can reveal:
- which patents were dropped or narrowed,
- whether redesign or supply restrictions were implemented,
- per-unit or lump-sum economics,
- cross-licenses and release scope.
No such items are provided.
What is the current litigation posture for Fractus v. ADT LLC?
Featured snippet answer: Current status (pending, stayed, closed, trial date, or appellate posture) cannot be determined from the provided input.
Downstream risk depending on posture
- If pending: ongoing injunction exposure and discovery obligations
- If stayed: business continuity and license negotiation leverage
- If closed: enforceability and potential re-filing risks
No posture data is included.
How strong is Fractus’ patent estate in antenna-related wireless communications for this case?
Featured snippet answer: A strength rating cannot be computed without knowing which specific patents are asserted and what the court has ruled on (construction, 101, invalidity, infringement).
Litigation-strength metrics requiring case data
- Prior art landscape and whether anticipation is close
- Whether Fractus claims have been construed narrowly
- Whether the asserted claims map cleanly to accused product RF stacks
- Whether written description supports the broadest claim interpretation
Those inputs are absent in the provided information.
How does this case compare with other Fractus enforcement actions?
Featured snippet answer: A comparison requires the asserted-patent set and outcomes in 2:22-cv-00412, plus comparable cases’ dockets. None are provided.
Comparison axes that would normally be used
- Same patent family or different families
- Same accused product sector (IoT hubs vs. sensors vs. routers)
- Same procedural posture (time-to-claim-construction, dispositive outcomes)
- Same jurisdictional patterns in E.D. Texas
Not computable here.
What generic or design-around risks exist for ADT if the claims are upheld?
Featured snippet answer: Design-around and non-infringement pathways cannot be assessed without the construed claim elements and the accused architecture.
Common design-around levers in antenna disputes
- Alternative radiator geometry and feed structures
- Different RF band usage or modulation assumptions
- Changing integration or packaging that alters structural limitations
- Avoiding “means” elements if asserted via functional claiming
Case-specific levers require claim construction and infringement mapping.
Key Takeaways
- Case identified: Fractus, S.A. v. ADT LLC, E.D. Texas, 2:22-cv-00412.
- What cannot be stated from the provided input: asserted patent numbers, accused products, claim construction results, motion rulings, settlement or dismissal terms, and current case posture.
- Actionable next step for business use (not provided here): litigation decisions depend on the asserted-patent list and the court’s constructions and rulings; without those, infringement and risk cannot be quantified.
FAQs
-
Which specific Fractus patents are asserted in 2:22-cv-00412?
Not determinable from the provided input. -
What accused ADT devices or components are named in the complaint?
Not determinable from the provided input. -
Did the court decide any § 101 or indefiniteness motions in this case?
Not determinable from the provided input. -
Has the case been stayed, settled, or dismissed in Fractus v. ADT (2:22-cv-00412)?
Not determinable from the provided input. -
What is the current status of the litigation and any upcoming deadlines?
Not determinable from the provided input.
References (APA)
- Fractus, S.A. v. ADT LLC, No. 2:22-cv-00412 (E.D. Tex.).
More… ↓
