Untitled case

This case, 5:24-cv-00038, involves patent infringement litigation filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, with Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter overseeing pretrial matters including Markman hearings. The plaintiffs are Pantech Corporation and Pantech Wireless, LLC, while the defendant is OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. Pantech, formerly a mobile phone manufacturer, now operates as a patent assertion entity (PAE) leveraging a portfolio of patents, including Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). OnePlus is a technology company specializing in smartphones and other consumer electronics. The lawsuit alleges that OnePlus's smartphones and other devices, which are compliant with LTE and/or 5G cellular networking standards, infringe eight of Pantech's patents. Many of these asserted patents are claimed to be SEPs. The specific patent 10863573 listed in the case metadata appears to be for an unrelated technology (polyelectrolyte multilayer coatings for medical applications) and is not among the patents identified in the current litigation documents for this case number.

The procedural posture of the Eastern District of Texas is particularly significant for patent litigation. The district is widely known as a "rocket docket," characterized by its plaintiff-friendly local rules, fast-paced litigation schedule, and a historical reputation for higher plaintiff success rates and larger damage awards, making it a favored venue for patentees. This case is notable not only for involving a PAE asserting SEPs in the highly competitive mobile communication industry but also because it includes allegations of willful infringement based on OnePlus's alleged failure to engage in good-faith FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing negotiations. Furthermore, Pantech previously secured a substantial jury verdict of over $10 million against OnePlus in a separate, related case in the same district just weeks before filing this particular lawsuit, demonstrating an ongoing pattern of litigation between these parties.

Although the case was noted as "Active litigation" in the provided metadata, recent docket entries indicate a significant development: the case was dismissed with prejudice on May 28, 2026, following a joint motion to dismiss filed by Pantech and OnePlus. This dismissal concludes the specific claims in this lawsuit, although the broader pattern of SEP assertions by Pantech and the resolution of FRAND-related disputes remain areas of keen interest in the wireless communication sector.

The patent infringement litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-00038, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas by Pantech Corporation and Pantech Wireless, LLC (Plaintiffs) against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (Defendant). The case involves allegations of infringement of eight of Pantech's patents related to wireless communication systems, asserted to be Standard Essential Patents (SEPs), including patent 10,863,573.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments and current posture:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024-03-14): Pantech Corporation and Pantech Wireless, LLC filed the complaint against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. on March 14, 2024. The complaint alleged direct, indirect, and willful infringement of the patents, breach of FRAND duties, and unjust enrichment, stemming from failed licensing negotiations.
• Pre-trial Motions of Substance (2025-08-27 & 2025-09-26): OnePlus filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint. On August 27, 2025, Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter issued a Recommendation to deny OnePlus's motion to dismiss. The Recommendation concluded that Pantech had adequately alleged willful infringement, noting OnePlus's alleged knowledge of infringement prior to the complaint and its refusal to accept a FRAND license. The court, presided over by Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, adopted this Recommendation on September 26, 2025.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes (2025-03-26 & 2025-07-09 & 2025-07-30): The parties filed a Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 49) on March 26, 2025. A Markman hearing was held on July 9, 2025. Following the hearing, the court issued a Claim Construction Order (Dkt. 90) on July 30, 2025, resolving disputes for 14 terms or phrases.
• Discovery Milestones (Ongoing): Amended Docket Control Orders have set various discovery deadlines. The First Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 47), filed March 12, 2025, and the Third Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 86), filed July 17, 2025, outline schedules for expert discovery, designation of expert witnesses, and exchange of deposition testimony. For instance, deadlines were set for amended pleadings (after Markman), expert discovery, and designation of rebuttal expert witnesses relative to dispositive motions.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings (2025-05-13): OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-00763, against Pantech Wireless, LLC on May 13, 2025. This IPR proceeding targets claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,863,573, one of the patents asserted in the district court litigation. The status of the IPR petition (e.g., whether it has been instituted) is not publicly detailed in the available search results as of the current date.
• Present Posture (Active Litigation): The case is currently in active litigation. While a jury trial was tentatively scheduled for April 27, 2026, with a pretrial conference on April 7, 2026, according to the First Amended Docket Control Order, a subsequent Third Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. 86) indicates that the jury trial and jury selection dates are "To be determined at PTC" (Pretrial Conference), with the Pretrial Conference rescheduled for April 28, 2026. This suggests the trial dates are still fluid and subject to further scheduling by the court.

The plaintiffs in the patent infringement case 5:24-cv-00038, filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, are Pantech Corporation and Pantech Wireless, LLC.

Counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) include:

• Timothy E. Hudson
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel. His signature appears on filings for Pantech Corporation.
  • Firm: Thompson & Knight LLP (now Holland & Knight after merger).
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas.
  • Note: Timothy E. Hudson is a partner at Holland & Knight, focusing on intellectual property and commercial litigation, with experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement suits. His practice includes a strong emphasis on technology-related disputes.The plaintiffs in the patent infringement case 5:24-cv-00038, filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, are Pantech Corporation and Pantech Wireless, LLC.

Based on available docket information, the following counsel of record represent the plaintiff(s):

• Timothy E. Hudson
  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiff. His signature appears on filings for Pantech Corporation.
  • Firm: Thompson & Knight LLP. Thompson & Knight LLP merged with Holland & Knight LLP in 2021.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas.
  • Note: Timothy E. Hudson is a partner and trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property and commercial litigation. He has extensive experience representing clients in patent infringement lawsuits.

The defendant in Pantech Corporation and Pantech Wireless, LLC v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (5:24-cv-00038) is OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd..

While a specific, comprehensive list of counsel of record for the defendant with all requested details (roles, office locations, and a one-line note on experience) is not fully available in the provided search results, the firm Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. has been identified in connection with OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in this case. To provide the complete details for each attorney as requested, further investigation would be needed to extract specific names and then research their individual profiles.

Based on the available information, the following is known:

• Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
• Representing Firm (identified): Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd.

Without direct access to the full docket entries showing individual attorney appearances and their designated roles, or further specific attorney mentions in the provided summaries, it's not possible to definitively list each counsel of record with their specific roles (lead, of counsel, local, in-house), office locations, and detailed experience notes at this time. Filings are not explicitly stated to be sealed, but the granular detail requested for individual attorneys is not present in the search results.