Text Size -A+

11-2683-JAR

  • print
  • FAQs

Case Summary: Sprint Communications Company v. Cox Communications, Inc., 11-2683-JAR (D. Kans)

This is a case about the alleged infringement of numerous Sprint-owned patents by Cox Communications, Inc. (CCI)(and its related companies together referred to herein as “Cox”). These patents are part of a “Voice-over-Packet (“VoP”) portfolio of patents that relate to technology developed by Sprint making it possible to make phone calls through internet technology and patented in the early 2000s. According to Sprint, Cox has and continues to make, use, offer to sell, and/or sold broadband and/or packet-based telephony products or services without Sprint’s permission.

The video is of an evidentiary hearing (with testimony about the organization of CCI and its actions) regarding a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction filed by CCI and a Motion to Transfer to Delaware filed by all defendants.

According to Cox, Sprint wanted to obtain complete relief for patent infringement against the national system owned and operated by the Cox Communications family but only named as defendants those entities which engaged in the alleged infringement in the state of Kansas, intentionally omitting several dozen Cox entities which engage in the accused conduct in other jurisdictions. According to CCI, Defendants offered to join all of the relevant Cox entities in Delaware but Sprint declined. Defendants also offered to continue to proceed in Kansas if Sprint agreed not to seek relief against Cox’s non-Kansas entities, but Sprint declined. CCI argues that it is only the “corporate grandparent” of Cox Kansas, is incorporated in Delaware, has its principal place of business in Georgia, and is NOT a resident of Kansas. The question then becomes whether CCI has engaged in any conduct which amounts to direct infringement in Kansas.

The court issued an order in September denying CCI’s motion to dismiss but granting the motion to transfer all of the proceedings to Delaware.

Watch Video Watch Video

 

Case Highlights

  • Case highlights for this case is not yet available.

 

Case-related documents, including those referenced above, are available via the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) service. For more information, visit Pacer.gov.