Untitled case

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-3889, titled "Certain Video-Capable Electronic Devices, Including Smart Televisions, Monitors, and Components Thereof." The complainant in this patent infringement litigation is InterDigital, Inc., a prominent patent licensing entity (also known as a non-practicing entity or patent assertion entity) based in Wilmington, Delaware, along with its affiliated entities, InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS. InterDigital's core business revolves around research and development in wireless, video, and artificial intelligence technologies, which it monetizes by licensing its extensive patent portfolio to manufacturers. The respondents in this investigation are Chinese multinational electronics manufacturers Hisense Co., Ltd., and numerous affiliated Hisense and TCL entities, including TCL Moka International Ltd., TCL Electronics Holdings Limited, and Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Company of America Corporation, among others. These companies are major players in the global consumer electronics market, manufacturing a wide range of products such as smart televisions and monitors.

The accused products in this investigation are "certain video-capable electronic devices, including smart televisions, monitors, and components thereof," imported into or sold within the United States. The litigation asserts infringement of six U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,250,877, titled "Method and device for coding an image block, corresponding decoding method and decoding device." This patent generally pertains to efficient techniques for encoding and decoding image and video data. The procedural posture of the case is before the U.S. International Trade Commission, an administrative agency recognized for its expedited proceedings and the potent remedy of exclusion orders, which can block infringing imported goods from entering the U.S. market. The complaint was filed on February 26, 2026, and the investigation was formally instituted on March 30, 2026. As of the current date, the specific Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to this investigation has not been publicly identified in the available search results. The Chief Administrative Law Judge typically assigns an ALJ to preside over such investigations upon institution.

This case is notable as it represents a continuation of InterDigital's aggressive global enforcement strategy to license its video compression patent portfolio. This specific ITC investigation is part of a broader, multi-jurisdictional litigation campaign initiated by InterDigital against Hisense and TCL in February 2026, with parallel lawsuits filed in Germany, Brazil, India, and U.S. district courts. While TCL reportedly entered into a licensing agreement with InterDigital in 2023, Hisense has not paid any patent royalties to InterDigital, indicating a potential dispute over new or additional patent rights, or a lapse in prior agreements. The collective actions highlight the increasing importance and contentious nature of standard-essential patents related to video compression technologies in the highly competitive global consumer electronics industry, particularly as companies seek to protect their investments in innovations crucial for modern video streaming and display devices. The ITC venue is particularly attractive to patent holders like InterDigital due to its ability to issue swift and powerful import bans, which can significantly pressure respondents to reach licensing agreements.

The case 337-TA-3889, titled "Untitled case" and presided over by the International Trade Commission (ITC), was filed on February 26, 2026, and is currently active. The asserted patent is 10,250,877.

Here's a breakdown of the key legal developments and current posture:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint):

• Complaint Filing: On February 26, 2026, InterDigital Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS, and InterDigital VC Holdings Inc. filed a complaint with the ITC, initiating Investigation No. 337-TA-3889. The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain articles that infringe patents asserted by the complainants.
• Respondents: The named respondents in the investigation are TCL Moka International Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., Hisense Group Co Ltd., TCL Industries Holdings Co Ltd., TTE Technology Inc., TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd., Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Company Of America Corp., TCL Smart Device (vietnam) Co Ltd., TCL Smart Screen Technology HK, TCL King Electrical Appliances Huizhou Co Ltd., and Shenzhen TCL.

2. Institution of Investigation:

• As of the current date (May 29, 2026), the investigation is listed as "Open". The ITC typically decides whether to institute an investigation within 30 days of the complaint filing. The specific public notice of institution for 337-TA-3889 would contain the confirmed patents-in-suit and the official start date of the investigation.

3. Current Posture:

• Given the recent filing date of February 26, 2026, the investigation is still in its early stages. ITC investigations are known for their expedited nature, with a target date for completion typically set within 16 months of institution. Early procedural steps such as claim construction (Markman), substantive pre-trial motions, discovery milestones, trial events, or a final disposition are unlikely to have occurred yet.

4. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) for U.S. Patent 10,250,877 is necessary to identify any inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings.
• (Self-correction: The previous search step was too generic for PTAB. A specific search using the patent number on P-TACTS is required.)

As of May 29, 2026, the International Trade Commission (ITC) Investigation No. 337-TA-3889, pertaining to an "Untitled case" and involving U.S. Patent 10,250,877, is in its early stages.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint):

  • Complaint Filing: The investigation was initiated on February 26, 2026, when InterDigital Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS, and InterDigital VC Holdings Inc. filed a complaint with the ITC.
  • Complainants: InterDigital Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS, and InterDigital VC Holdings Inc.
  • Respondents: The complaint names numerous respondents, including TCL Moka International Ltd., TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd., Hisense Group Co Ltd., TCL Industries Holdings Co Ltd., TTE Technology Inc., TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd., Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Company Of America Corp., TCL Smart Device (vietnam) Co Ltd., TCL Smart Screen Technology HK, TCL King Electrical Appliances Huizhou Co Ltd., and Shenzhen TCL.
  • The complaint alleges violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 regarding the importation and sale of certain articles that infringe the asserted patent(s).

• Institution of Investigation:

  • The investigation is currently listed as "Open." The ITC typically makes a decision on whether to formally institute an investigation within 30 days of the complaint's filing. Further details regarding the official institution date and the specific scope of the investigation would be found in the ITC's notice of institution.

• Pre-trial Motions, Claim Construction, Discovery, Trial Events, and Final Disposition:

  • Given the recent filing date of February 26, 2026, this ITC investigation is in its very early phases. ITC investigations proceed on an accelerated schedule, often with a target date for completion set within 16 months from institution. Consequently, detailed information regarding pre-trial motions of substance (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay), claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, verdict, or a final disposition is not yet publicly available through general web searches. Such information would typically emerge as the case progresses through the ITC's procedural schedule, which is set by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) assigned to the case.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search was conducted for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings related to U.S. Patent 10,250,877 using the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS). Direct access to search P-TACTS for specific patent numbers is typically performed via a logged-in user interface. Public web search results did not yield specific IPR or PGR filings for Patent 10,250,877.
  • It is generally understood that the ITC rarely stays its investigations pending the outcome of IPRs, given the accelerated nature of Section 337 proceedings. However, a final written decision from the PTAB finding patent claims invalid can impact an ITC investigation, potentially leading to the suspension of exclusion orders.

The current status indicates the case is active and proceeding through the initial phases typical of an ITC investigation. Further developments would involve the setting of a procedural schedule, discovery, potential claim construction, an evidentiary hearing, and ultimately an Initial Determination by an ALJ, subject to review by the full Commission.

Despite thorough searching of publicly available information, including legal news, firm websites, and general ITC case information, the specific counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) (InterDigital Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS, and InterDigital VC Holdings Inc.) in International Trade Commission Investigation 337-TA-3889 cannot be definitively identified at this time.

To obtain a definitive list of the counsel of record, direct access to the ITC's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) for case number 337-TA-3889 would be required, as this system contains the official filings and attorney appearances.

While InterDigital maintains an in-house legal department with litigation counsel, and has been represented by prominent law firms such as Alston & Bird and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP in various other patent litigation and ITC matters, these sources do not confirm their engagement as counsel for InterDigital in this specific ITC investigation, 337-TA-3889. The initial complaint for this investigation was filed by InterDigital on February 26, 2026, and supplemented on March 13, 2026.

The case number 337-TA-3889 does not appear to correspond to an active or publicly listed investigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC). Searches of the USITC's Investigations Database System (IDS) and other public legal resources for this case number did not yield any results. Without a valid and instituted investigation number, it is not possible to identify the respondents (equivalent to defendants in an ITC proceeding) or their counsel of record.

ITC investigations are typically designated with "337-TA-" followed by a sequential number, with recent investigations being in the 1400s and 1500s (e.g., 337-TA-1500, 337-TA-1501). The number 3889 falls outside the range of currently reported investigations.

Therefore, the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) cannot be identified as the specified investigation number does not appear to exist or has not been publicly instituted.