Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00764, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. against Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP Inc.). Wilus Institute is identified as a Patent Assertion Entity (NPE). The lawsuit alleges infringement of US Patent 11700597, focusing on Wi-Fi 6 technology. The accused products are HP laptops and desktops. This case has been consolidated with several other related cases, including those against [[Samsung Electronics America Inc](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%20Inc).](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%20Inc.) and TP-Link entities, under lead case 2:24-cv-00752, all before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.

The asserted patent, US Patent 11700597, is titled "Method and apparatus for transmitting physical layer convergence protocol data unit in wireless local area network system." It generally describes methods and devices for efficient data transmission in wireless local area network systems, particularly relevant to Wi-Fi 6 standards. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation, often referred to as a "rocket docket" due to its expedited schedules and plaintiff-friendly reputation, which includes a history of significant patent verdicts and specialized local rules for patent cases. It has seen a recent resurgence in patent filings, making it a prominent forum for such disputes.

This case is notable given the plaintiff's classification as an NPE in the high-tech industry and the involvement of major technology companies as defendants. The litigation concerns Wi-Fi 6, a widely adopted wireless communication standard, suggesting potential industry-wide implications. A trial date for the consolidated litigation is set for June 1, 2026. Furthermore, the '597 patent is also facing a challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in an inter partes review (IPR2025-00936) initiated by Samsung, with the patent owner having requested discretionary denial of the IPR, citing the upcoming district court trial. Organizations like Unified Patents, which aim to deter frivolous patent litigation, are actively tracking Wilus Institute's assertions.

This summary outlines the key legal developments and outcomes for the patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00764, filed by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. against Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP Inc.) in the Eastern District of Texas.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

The lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2024, by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. against HP Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. On October 23, 2024, this case was consolidated for all pretrial issues with several other related cases, including those against Samsung Electronics America Inc. and TP-Link entities, under lead case 2:24-cv-00752. All future filings were to be made in the lead case, though individual cases remained active for trial. HP Inc. filed an amended answer to the complaint and amended counterclaims on April 8, 2025.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a motion to stay proceedings pending inter partes reviews (IPRs) on some of the patents, which was opposed. On April 23, 2026, District Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied the motion to stay. This aligns with the common practice in the Eastern District of Texas to deny pre-institution motions to stay.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

A Memorandum Claim Construction Opinion and Order was signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on December 23, 2025, in the consolidated case (2:24-cv-00752). While the opinion addressed claim construction disputes for multiple patents, it also noted that HP Inc. was no longer a party to the consolidated litigation as of an order granting Wilus's and HP's joint motion to dismiss their claims against one another. This means that although a Markman order was issued in the consolidated case, it did not directly impact the claims between Wilus and HP Inc. at that stage.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

Infringement contentions for the '597 patent were served by Wilus Institute on November 18, 2024. Invalidity contentions were served by the petitioners (including Samsung) on February 13, 2025. The parties were scheduled to substantially complete document production by November 4, 2025, and complete fact discovery by December 22, 2025.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

A jury trial for the consolidated litigation was set for June 1, 2026. However, prior to this date, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.'s claims against HP Inc. were dismissed.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

On November 17, 2025, an order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap dismissing the case with prejudice as to Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. HP Inc. (Case No. 2:24-cv-00764). This dismissal was a result of a joint motion filed by Wilus and HP. The claims between Wilus Institute and HP Inc. were bilaterally dismissed.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and their Effect on the Litigation

The '597 patent is subject to an inter partes review (IPR2025-00936) initiated by Samsung. Wilus Institute, the patent owner, requested discretionary denial of the IPR, citing the upcoming district court trial. The patent owner argued that the Board should deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) based on the Fintiv factors, which "overwhelmingly support denying institution". The IPR petition was filed seven months after the complaint, five months after infringement contentions, and two months after invalidity contentions were served in the co-pending litigation. The PTAB's discretionary denial framework, particularly the "settled expectations" doctrine introduced in 2025, has made it more difficult to challenge long-standing patents in IPR proceedings. However, "material error" by the USPTO during prosecution can be a successful method for overcoming "settled expectations" and leading to PTAB referral. As of April 23, 2026, Samsung's motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the IPR was denied. The outcome of IPR2025-00936 regarding the '597 patent is not explicitly detailed in the search results beyond the patent owner's request for discretionary denial.

The following counsel of record represented Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. in this patent infringement case (2:24-cv-00764), which was consolidated under lead case 2:24-cv-00752:

Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)

• Marc A. Fenster (Lead Counsel) - Known for extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the technology sector.
• Reza Mirzaie (Lead Counsel) - Frequently appears in patent litigation and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
• Jacob Buczko (Of Counsel) - Involved in various aspects of patent litigation.
• Dale Chang (Of Counsel) - Involved in various aspects of patent litigation.
• Jonathan Ma (Of Counsel) - Involved in various aspects of patent litigation.
• Neil Alan Rubin (Of Counsel) - Involved in various aspects of patent litigation.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Marshall, TX)

• Andrea Leigh Fair (Local Counsel) - Provides local representation in the Eastern District of Texas.

The case 2:24-cv-00764, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. HP Inc., was dismissed with prejudice as to HP Inc. on November 17, 2025, due to a joint motion filed by both parties. This means the claims between Wilus Institute and HP Inc. were bilaterally dismissed, and HP Inc. is no longer a defendant in this specific case.

While specific counsel for HP Inc. in this particular dismissed case is not readily available through public search results due to its dismissal, general information regarding HP Inc.'s intellectual property litigation counsel can be found. HP Inc. actively seeks experienced IP Litigation Counsel to lead high-stakes patent litigation. These in-house roles are designed for seasoned patent litigators with demonstrated trial capability and proven experience in complex patent disputes.

One notable in-house counsel at Hewlett-Packard (prior to the company's split into HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise) is Terry G. Ritz, Senior Counsel, IP Litigation. He manages IP litigation and pre-litigation disputes, primarily for the Enterprise Business Group and Personal Systems Group at HP, and is a registered patent attorney. Mr. Ritz previously served as Division Counsel at Compaq and began his legal career at Pravel, Hewitt, Kimball & Krieger in Houston, Texas.

For other related cases involving Wilus Institute against HP Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, such as 2:25-cv-00069, Benjamin Elacqua is listed as counsel for HP Inc. in docket filings. These filings include HP Inc.'s answer to the complaint and counterclaims. This suggests that attorneys from firms specializing in patent litigation are likely retained by HP Inc. for such matters.