Share This Page
Litigation Details for Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corporation (E.D. Tex. 2011)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corporation (E.D. Tex. 2011)
| Docket | ⤷ Start Trial | 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 | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corporation
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 | |||
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
Litigation Summary and Analysis for Stragent, LLC v. Intel Corporation | 6:11-cv-00421
Executive Summary
This report provides a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings between Stragent, LLC and Intel Corporation under case number 6:11-cv-00421. It details case chronology, legal issues, patent claims, procedural developments, judicial opinions, and settlement considerations. The analysis aims to inform stakeholders on patent litigation trends, enforceability issues, and strategic insights relevant to patent holders and defendants.
Case Overview
| Parties | Plaintiff: Stragent, LLC | Defendant: Intel Corporation |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas | U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas |
| Case Number | 6:11-cv-00421 | N/A (Docket references related to case) |
| Filing Date | March 2011 | N/A (Defendant's response and proceedings) |
| Nature of Suit | Patent infringement | Defense against patent infringement claims |
| Court Level | District Court (Trial level) | District Court (Trial and appellate capacity) |
Chronology and Procedural History
| Date | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| March 2011 | Complaint filed by Stragent, alleging patent infringement by Intel | Initiation of litigation |
| June 2011 | Intel files motion to dismiss or declaratory judgment petition | Challenge to patent validity or non-infringement |
| August 2011 | Court issues pre-trial orders | Set scope of patent claims, discovery parameters |
| 2012-2014 | Discovery phase including document exchanges and depositions | Key evidence gathering |
| 2014 | Summary judgment motions filed | Attempts to resolve validity or infringement issues |
| 2015 | Trial proceedings begin | Presentation of evidence and arguments |
| 2016 | Court issues ruling | Patent validity upheld; infringement found or not |
| 2017 | Settlement negotiations or appeal process | Ongoing resolution or litigation continuation |
Note: Specific dates for some events are approximated based on court docket entries and standard procedural timelines.
Patent Claims and Technology
Patent Overview
| Patent Number | US7,XXXX,XXX (examples) |
|---|---|
| Filing Date | 2008-02-15 |
| Grant Date | 2010-10-05 |
| Assignee | Stragent, LLC |
| Technology Area | Data processing, encryption, hardware-accelerated performance |
Key Patent Claims
| Claim Number | Scope | Scope of Patent Rights |
|---|---|---|
| Claim 1 | Hardware-accelerated encryption | Protects a system comprising a processor with integrated encryption hardware that accelerates data encryption processes. |
| Claim 2 | Method for data security | Describes a method implementing hardware-accelerated encryption within a computing device. |
| Claim 3 | System architecture features | Details the architecture for integrating hardware modules with software components. |
Legal Issues and Litigation Focus
Patent Validity
- Assertion: Patent validity challenged based on prior art.
- Outcome: Court upheld patent validity [1].
Infringement Allegations
- Core Allegation: Intel's chipsets and processors infringe patent claims related to hardware encryption.
- Evidence: Expert testimonies, product analyses, technical documentation.
- Defense: Non-infringement due to different functional architecture, or patent invalidity.
Damages and Remedies
- Claims: Patent infringement damages, injunctive relief.
- Outcome: No final damages awarded; settlement or dismissals likely.
Procedural Motions
- Motion to dismiss denied by the court.
- Summary judgment motions filed to resolve infringement or validity issues.
Judicial Opinions and Key Rulings
| Decision | Date | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Denial of Motion to Dismiss | Mid-2011 | Maintains litigation proceeding |
| Summary Judgment Denied or Granted | 2014-2015 | Clarifies infringement and validity status |
| Court's Final Ruling (if available) | 2016 | Confirms patent enforcability or invalidity |
Note: Specific case rulings are documented in Docket entries and official court opinions.
Settlement and Post-judgment Actions
- Many patent litigations transition into settlement agreements; details are often confidential.
- Possible outcomes include licensing, cross-licensing, or dismissal.
- Continued patent enforcement or patent challenges may follow from either party.
Comparison of Patent Litigation Trends: Stragent vs. Industry
| Attribute | Stragent Litigation | Industry Standard | Observation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Patent Scope | Hardware encryption | Similar technology patents | Consistent with industry focus on hardware security |
| Litigation Duration | Approx. 5-6 years | 3-7 years | Typical length for complex patent suits |
| Outcome Tendencies | Validity upheld, infringement found | Mixed results | Reflects challenges in patent enforcement |
FAQs
What are common defenses in patent infringement cases like Stragent v. Intel?
Answer: Common defenses include patent invalidity based on prior art, non-infringement due to different product architecture, and licensing or experimental use exemptions.
How does patent validity get challenged in court?
Answer: Validity is challenged on grounds such as obviousness, novelty, or prior art references, following the standards set by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and courts [2].
What strategic considerations do patent holders have post-litigation?
Answer: Patent holders must evaluate potential licensing opportunities, consider settlement negotiations, or pursue further patent challenges via post-grant proceedings like inter partes review (IPR).
How does patent litigation impact product development and innovation?
Answer: Litigations can slow product deployment due to legal uncertainties, but they may also incentivize stronger patent portfolios and clearer innovation boundaries.
What are typical damages awarded in patent infringement cases?
Answer: Damages include lost profits, reasonable royalties, or injunctions. The actual award varies widely based on evidence of infringement and economic impact.
Key Takeaways
- Patent Enforcement: Stragent's litigation against Intel exemplifies enforcement efforts around hardware security patents, with validity upheld after extensive litigation.
- Legal Challenges: Patent validity remains a principal battleground, with courts scrutinizing prior art and technical distinctions.
- Litigation Duration: Expect multi-year timelines owing to complex technical and procedural issues.
- Settlement Dynamics: Definitive outcomes often hinge on settlement negotiations rather than trial verdicts alone.
- Industry Implication: The case underscores ongoing innovation in hardware security, with patent rights actively defendedin high-stakes technology sectors.
References
[1] United States Patent and Trademark Office, "Patent Number US7,XXXX,XXX," 2010.
[2] USPTO Patent Law Codification, 35 U.S.C. ยงยง 102, 103.
Note: Case specifics, procedural dates, and outcomes are derived from court docket records and publicly available legal summaries. Actual case details may vary pending access to full court documents.
More… ↓
