PatentTXED6:09-cv-00143Closed

PACid Group, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Get an email if this closed case reopens or anything new is filed.

Summary

PACid Group sues Apple and major tech manufacturers for patent infringement involving networking and semiconductor technology.

Summary generated by AI from public docket data. Verify against the original filing before relying on it.

Coverage vs reality meter

Coverage vs realityNo signal

Counsel of record

For the defendant
Other counsel (amici, etc.)
Court
TXED
Docket no.
6:09-cv-00143
Nature of suit
Patent
Filed
2009-03-30
Last filing
2010-10-15
Terminated
2010-10-15

Cause

28:1338 Patent Infringement

Entities in this case

Apple90PACid

Parties

Marvell Semiconductor, Ltd. (defendant) Marvell Technology Inc (defendant) Marvell Semiconductor Inc (defendant) Marvell Technology Group Ltd. (defendant) Edimax Computer Company (defendant) Edimax Technology Co., Ltd. (defendant) Realtek Semiconductor Corp (defendant) Atheros Commuinications, Inc. (defendant) Intel Corporation (defendant) Broadcom Corporation (defendant) Toshiba America Information Systems Inc (defendant) Toshiba America Inc (defendant) Toshiba Corporation (defendant) Lenovo (Unied States) Inc. (defendant) Lenovo Group Limited (defendant) Hewlett-Packard Company (defendant) Dell, Inc. (counter claimant) Brother International Corp. (consol defendant) Brother Industries (U.S.A.), Inc. (consol defendant) Brother Industries Ltd (consol defendant)

Docket entries

  1. 2009-10-02

    ***FILED IN ERROR. Document # 165, Sur-Reply. PLEASE IGNORE. DUPLICATE PLEADING.*** (mjc, )

  2. 2009-09-29

    ***FILED IN ERROR, PER ATTY, CLERK HAS USED THIS PROPOSED ORDER AND ATTACHED IT TO #159, PER ATTY. Document # 160, Submission of Agreed Order. PLEASE IGNORE.*** (sm, )

  3. 2009-06-03

    ***FILED IN ERROR. Document # 86, Broadcom Corporation's Answer to Complaint. TO BE REFILED TO REFLECT A COUNTERCLAIM. PLEASE IGNORE.*** (mjc, )

  4. 2009-05-27

    Defendant's Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 81 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Atheros Commuinications, Inc. to 6/9/2009. 7 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  5. 2009-05-26

    Defendant's Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 70 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Hewlett-Packard Company to 6/5/2009. 44 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  6. 2009-05-26

    Defendant's Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 66 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Marvell Semiconductor, Ltd. to 5/29/2009. 7 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  7. 2009-05-26

    Defendant's Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 67 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Marvell Technology Inc to 5/29/2009. 7 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  8. 2009-05-26

    Defendant's Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 68 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Marvell Technology Group Ltd. to 5/29/2009. 7 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  9. 2009-04-29

    Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 44 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Broadcom Corporation to 6/2/2009. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  10. 2009-04-29

    Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 41 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Gateway Inc to 5/27/2009. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  11. 2009-04-29

    Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 40 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Atheros Commuinications, Inc. to 5/27/2009. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  12. 2009-04-23

    Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 18 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Hewlett-Packard Company to 5/22/2009. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  13. 2009-04-23

    Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 21 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Dell, Inc to 5/27/2009. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  14. 2009-04-14

    Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 6 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Marvell Semiconductor Inc to 5/22/2009. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  15. 2009-04-14

    Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 7 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Marvell Semiconductor, Ltd. to 5/22/2009. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  16. 2009-04-14

    Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 8 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Marvell Technology Group Ltd. to 5/22/2009. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  17. 2009-04-14

    Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 9 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Marvell Technology Inc to 5/22/2009. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  18. 2009-04-14

    Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 11 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Apple Inc. to 5/25/2009. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  19. 2009-04-14

    Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint 13 is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Intel Corporation to 5/22/2009. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( mll, )

  20. 2009-03-30

    Judge Leonard Davis added. (mll, )

Docket history from CourtListener/RECAP — most recent first.

ShareShare on XLinkedIn
View on CourtListener →Open in feed →Last updated 2026-07-14