Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. AT&T Inc.

Summary

Traxcell Technologies sues AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint for infringing wireless location tracking patents.

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

Coverage vs reality meter

Entities in this case

Parties

TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (plaintiff) VERIZON WIRELESS PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, LP (defendant) SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC. (defendant) SPRINT SPECTRUM, LP (defendant) SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY LP (defendant) AT&T INC. (defendant)

Docket entries

1. #862024-01-08

   The petition for writ of certiorari, No. 23-574, filed on 11/22/2023, was Denied on 01/08/2024. [975951] [MVH] [Entered: 01/10/2024 05:00 PM]

2. #852023-11-28

   Petition for writ of certiorari filed on 11/22/2023 in the U.S. Supreme Court. No.: 23-574, LLC Traxcell Technologies v. Sprint Communications Company LP. [966438] [23-1246, 23-1436] [MVH] [Entered: 11/29/2023 04:28 PM]

3. #842023-09-05

   Mandate issued to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [947587] [23-1246, 23-1436] [MVH] [Entered: 09/05/2023 12:22 PM]

4. #832023-08-29

   ORDER filed denying [78] petition for en banc rehearing filed by Traxcell Technologies, LLC. By: Per Curiam. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [946457] [MVH] [Entered: 08/29/2023 12:20 PM]

5. #822023-08-15

   13 paper copies of Doc. No. [80] received from Appellant Traxcell Technologies, LLC. [943279] [VDW] [Entered: 08/15/2023 03:40 PM]

6. #812023-08-15

   CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: Traxcell Technologies, LLC submitted an inadequate number of paper copies (see Doc. No. [80]). Pursuant to FCR 25(c)(3), 13 paper copies are required for petitions for rehearing en banc. CORRECTION: The court still requires 7 paper copies in this case. In the future, please ensure the appropriate number of copies are provided. THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. [943258] [MJL] [Entered: 08/15/2023 02:51 PM]

7. #802023-08-15

   6 paper copies of Doc. No. [78] received from Appellant Traxcell Technologies, LLC. [943243] [VDW] [Entered: 08/15/2023 02:18 PM]

8. #792023-08-11

   Notice to Appellant Traxcell Technologies, LLC: The record of this case indicates that no paper copies of the petition for en banc rehearing [78] under FCR 25(c)(3) have been filed. The required paper copies should be received by the court on or before 08/15/2023. Failure to file required documents may result in dismissal or other action as deemed appropriate by the court. See FCR 25(h). Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [942413] [JCP] [Entered: 08/11/2023 02:42 PM]

9. #782023-07-28

   Petition for en banc rehearing filed by Appellant Traxcell Technologies, LLC. Service: 07/28/2023 by email. [939250] [23-1246] [William Ramey] [Entered: 07/28/2023 03:05 PM]

10. #772023-07-28

    NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE: The submission of Appellant Traxcell Technologies, LLC, Petition for Rehearing En Banc [76], is not in compliance with the rules of this court (see attached). Compliant document due on 08/04/2023. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [939090] [MVH] [Entered: 07/28/2023 10:05 AM]

11. #762023-07-27

    Petition for en banc rehearing filed by Appellant Traxcell Technologies, LLC. Service: 07/27/2023 by email. [939031] [23-1246]. This document is non-compliant. See Doc. No.[77] [William Ramey] [Entered: 07/27/2023 06:32 PM]

12. #752023-07-13

    ORDER striking attorney entry of appearance [71]. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [936007] [MVH] [Entered: 07/13/2023 10:45 AM]

13. #742023-07-13

    JUDGMENT. AFFIRMED. Issued pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 36. Terminated on the merits after oral argument. COSTS: Costs taxed against Appellant(s). Mandate to issue in due course. For information regarding costs, petitions for rehearing, and petitions for writs of certiorari click here. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [935991] [23-1246, 23-1436] [MVH] [Entered: 07/13/2023 10:21 AM]

14. #732023-07-11

    Submitted after ORAL ARGUMENT to Panel: Prost, Circuit Judge; Hughes, Circuit Judge and Cunningham, Circuit Judge.Arguing counsel: William Peterson Ramey, III for Traxcell Technologies, LLC and Brian David Schmalzbach for Sprint Solutions, Inc., Sprint Spectrum, LP and Sprint Communications Company LP.Oral Argument Audio available here. [935472] [MJL] [Entered: 07/11/2023 03:51 PM]

15. #722023-06-28

    NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE: The submission of Appellant Traxcell Technologies, LLC, Entry of Appearance for Kyril Talanov [71], is not in compliance with the rules of this court (see attached). Compliant document due on 07/06/2023. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [932751] [MVH] [Entered: 06/28/2023 09:27 AM]

16. #712023-06-27

    Entry of Appearance for Kyril Talanov as counsel for. Service: 06/27/2023 by email. [932682] [23-1246]. This document is non-compliant. See Doc. No. [72]. Stricken pursuant to order. See Doc. No. [75] [Kyril Talanov] [Entered: 06/27/2023 05:59 PM]

17. #692023-06-14

    6 paper copies of Doc. No. [67], [66], [58] received from Appellant Traxcell Technologies, LLC. [930034] [VDW] [Entered: 06/14/2023 02:56 PM]

18. #702023-06-13

    6 paper copies of Doc. No. [65] received from Appellees Sprint Communications Company LP, Sprint Solutions, Inc., Sprint Spectrum, LP and Verizon Wireless Personal Communications, LP. [930035] [VDW] [Entered: 06/14/2023 03:00 PM]

19. #682023-06-13

    ORDER filed striking [63], [64]. Please see order for full and complete details. By: Merits Panel (Per Curiam). Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [929580] [MVH] [Entered: 06/13/2023 11:24 AM]

20. #672023-06-09

    MODIFIED ENTRY: CORRECTED REPLY BRIEF FILED by Appellant Traxcell Technologies, LLC. Service: 06/09/2023 by email. [929110]--[Edited 06/13/2023 by MVH - Reason: compliance review complete] [William Ramey] [Entered: 06/09/2023 06:41 PM]

Docket history from CourtListener/RECAP — most recent first.