Untitled case

I'll research this case, starting with the patent and case number, then verify the parties and outcome.

Confirmed the case is Maxell v. ASUSTeK. Now let me pin down the asserted patents, accused products, and outcome.

Now let me get the complaint details (accused products) and ASUS's IPR filings.

Case Overview: Maxell, Ltd. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 5:18-cv-00136-RWS (E.D. Tex.)

Confirmation and parties. The previously unconfirmed identification is correct: this is Maxell, Ltd. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., filed November 2, 2018 in the Texarkana Division of the Eastern District of Texas before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III (Dkt. 1; case terminated May 2, 2019). Maxell is a Japanese operating company (Kyoto) with a 60-year history in magnetic/optical media, batteries, and consumer electronics; the asserted patents reached it through the Hitachi chain (Hitachi, Ltd. → Hitachi Consumer Electronics → Hitachi Maxell → Maxell), and the complaint describes Maxell as both a product seller (wireless chargers, flash drives, media players, headphones) and an active licensor/enforcer of a mobile-device portfolio (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 1–4). That dual profile matters: Maxell is best characterized as a practicing entity running an aggressive licensing program rather than a classic NPE, and the complaint affirmatively pleads E.D. Tex. ties through its Marshall, Texas affiliate, Maxell Research and Development America, LLC (Dkt. 1 ¶ 5). The sole defendant was ASUSTeK Computer Inc., the Taiwanese parent of the ASUS brand — one of the world's largest PC makers and a significant smartphone/tablet vendor — sued alone, without its U.S. distributor subsidiary ASUS Computer International, which had been the co-defendant in the earlier California action.

The patents and accused technology. The complaint asserted two Maxell patents: U.S. Patent No. 6,329,794, "Information processing apparatus and power consumption control method" (Japanese priority May 22, 2000), which claims a battery-powered multi-function device — e.g., a phone with modem, audio, and videophone "function devices" — having a capacity detector for remaining battery capacity and a controller that reduces power consumption of individual function devices based on that remaining capacity; and U.S. Patent No. 6,765,616, a Hitachi-lineage patent in the same camera/image-pickup family as Maxell's frequently asserted '493 patent (the '136 case's two patents are identified in Maxell's later E.D. Tex. Apple filing, No. 5:19-cv-00036, Dkt. 29, which notes that the ASUS case "included the '794 Patent"). The accused products were ASUS's Android smartphones and tablets (the ZenFone/ZenPad lines), consistent with the companion California case, which charted the ZenFone AR, ZenFone 3 Zoom, ZenFone V, ZenPad Z8s/Z8/Z10, and ZenFone 2E Go against Maxell's mobile portfolio (C.D. Cal. No. 2:17-cv-07528, Dkt. 1). I could not verify from a primary source the precise model-by-model accused-product list in the Texas complaint; the docket closed before infringement contentions were served, so no court document ever fixed that list publicly.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. The case is a venue-and-timing story rather than a merits story. Maxell filed in Texarkana one month after its $43.3 million jury win against ZTE in the same courtroom — a June 29, 2018 verdict in Maxell v. ZTE, No. 5:16-cv-179-RWS, that included willful infringement of claims 1–2 of the '794 patent by the ZMax 2 (the '794 claims had also been construed in Maxell v. Huawei, 297 F. Supp. 3d 668 (E.D. Tex. 2018), where "function devices" was limited to modem, audio, and videophone devices). Filing against a Taiwanese defendant also mooted the TC Heartland venue fight, since foreign entities may be sued in any district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). ASUS had pre-emptively petitioned for IPR on a related Maxell patent two weeks before suit (IPR2019-00070 on U.S. 6,973,334, filed Oct. 16, 2018), but never answered or moved in Texas. Instead, after service was waived on December 17, 2018, the parties filed a joint notice of settlement and motion to stay on March 12, 2019 (Dkt. 5, with a sealed memorandum of understanding at Dkt. 6), the stay issued March 15 (Dkt. 7), and the case was dismissed with prejudice by joint motion and final judgment on April 30/May 2, 2019 (Dkts. 8–10). The ASUS IPR was simultaneously terminated (PTAB termination Apr. 12, 2019, with fee refund), and Maxell's parallel N.D. Cal. action against ASUS (No. 3:18-cv-01788-VC, Judge Vince Chhabria) was dismissed March 4, 2019 after the parties "resolved this case" — i.e., a global, undisclosed license resolved both fronts. Its significance is as a data point in Maxell's 2016–2021 campaign (Huawei, ZTE, BlackBerry, ASUS, Apple) showing the ZTE verdict's settlement leverage, and as the precursor to the '794's later prominence: Apple challenged that patent in IPR2020-00199, prompting Maxell to dismiss its '794 claims against Apple in March 2021 (No. 5:19-cv-00036, Dkt. 679). Maxell remains an active mobile/consumer-electronics licensor, most recently in its 2025 Section 337 action against VIZIO over smart-television patents.

Sourcing note: Docket entries come from the Docket Alarm docket for 5:18-cv-00136 and the complaint text at Dkt. 1; the ZTE verdict and damages figure from WIPR/IPR Daily coverage of the June 29, 2018 verdict and the Chinese-language 知产力 report detailing the verdict form; the N.D. Cal. dismissal from the Justia copy of the March 4, 2019 order; the PTAB termination from the IPR2019-00070 docket. Settlement terms (Dkt. 6, filed under seal) are not public and are not guessed at here.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with identifying the parties and docket.

Confirmed the case is Maxell Ltd. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 5:18-cv-00136-RWS (E.D. Tex., Judge Robert W. Schroeder III). Now let me dig into the docket.

Now let me pin down which patents were asserted in the '136 complaint and the parallel PTAB activity.

Maxell, Ltd. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 5:18-cv-00136-RWS (E.D. Tex.)

Case confirmed. The previously "untitled" case is Maxell, Ltd. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., filed 2018-11-02 in the Texarkana Division before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, terminated 2019-05-02. Nature of suit 830 (Patent), cause 15:1126, jury demand by plaintiff. The entire docket is eleven entries, and that fact is the headline: this was a six-month leverage case that settled before any defensive pleading, any motion practice, and any claim construction.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

2018-11-02 — Complaint (Dkt. 1, 31 pp.). Maxell pleaded infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 against ASUSTeK only — note that ASUS Computer International, Inc. (the U.S. subsidiary that was Maxell's co-defendant in California) was not named here. The complaint traced the patent chain of title: Hitachi, Ltd. → Hitachi Consumer Electronics (2009) → Hitachi Maxell (2013) → Maxell (reorganization/name change). Complaint PDF

Two features of the pleading matter strategically:

• It was expressly a follow-on to a pending California case. ¶6 recites that Maxell sued ASUS and ASUS Computer International in C.D. Cal. on 2017-10-13 (No. 2:17-cv-7528-R-MRW), that the case transferred to N.D. Cal. (No. 3:18-cv-01788-VC) in March 2018, and that "[d]uring the course of litigation, Maxell identified additional patents in its portfolio and additional products of ASUS that infringe such patents, including the patents and products at issue in this complaint." Maxell further alleged the parties mediated on 2018-08-30 and discussed a portfolio license covering the patents now sued on — a notice/knowledge allegation built on that mediation.
• Forum nexus. ¶5 alleged Maxell's own continuous E.D. Tex. business since 2014 and its affiliate Maxell Research and Development America, LLC in Marshall, Texas. This is the post-TC Heartland plaintiff-side presence narrative Maxell used across this campaign.

No answer and no counterclaims were ever filed. Service was waived on 2018-12-17, putting ASUS's response roughly due mid-February 2019; the joint notice of settlement landed 2019-03-12. The docket therefore contains zero Rule 12(b) motions, zero counterclaims of invalidity or non-infringement, and zero § 285 fee claims by ASUS. The only case-initiating filings are Dkts. 2–3 (AO 120 and corporate disclosure).

Patent-in-suit. Your metadata lists only US 6,329,794 ("Information processing apparatus and power consumption control method"). The '794 is confirmed as part of this case by a May 24, 2019 filing in the later Maxell v. Apple action, which lists "v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., C.A. No. 5:18-cv-00136-RWS" among related '794 proceedings and states the case "included the '794 Patent … and U.S. Patent No. 6,765,616." The verb "included" implies the complaint asserted more than two patents, but I could not verify the complete asserted-patent list from the complaint text in the sources available, and I will not guess at it. Treat "6329794" as confirmed-but-possibly-incomplete. (For scale: Maxell's parallel Huawei and ZTE complaints each asserted eight patents from the same Hitachi portfolio.)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

None. There was no motion to dismiss, no § 1404(a) transfer motion, no motion to stay pending IPR, no summary judgment motion, and no discovery motion. This is the most notable omission in the case, because ASUS had already succeeded in moving the California action from C.D. Cal. to N.D. Cal. in March 2018 on convenience grounds — yet it never tested E.D. Tex. venue or convenience here. The case went from waiver of service to settlement in under three months.

3. Claim construction

The case never reached Markman. No P.R. 4-3 joint statement, no P.R. 4-5 chart, no claim construction hearing. For the '794 specifically, the only claim construction material of record in this period comes from elsewhere: the Maxell v. Huawei decision, 297 F. Supp. 3d 668 (E.D. Tex. 2018), where the parties agreed the '794 terms "capacity detector for detecting a remaining capacity of said battery" (claim 1), "controller for controlling operation of said device based on said remaining capacity" (claim 1), and "a capacity detector detecting a remaining battery capacity of said battery" (claim 9) carry their plain and ordinary meaning, and "operate to the end" (claims 8, 14) likewise. CourtListener

4. Discovery milestones

None of record. No scheduling order, no docket control order, no discovery disputes. Because ASUS waived service and never answered, the P.R. 3-x disclosures and P.R. 4-x claim construction sequence never triggered.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date, no verdict, no JMOL/new trial/fee motions.

6. Settlement and final disposition

• **2019-03-12 — Joint Motion to Stay All Deadlines and Notice of Settlement (D

Bottom line

The plaintiff in No. 5:18-cv-00136-RWS (E.D. Tex., Texarkana Div.) is Maxell, Ltd. — not a "third" anonymous case as the earlier summary suggested. The caption is Maxell, Ltd. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., filed November 2, 2018 before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, and it was dismissed with prejudice on May 2, 2019 (Dkt. 9 order granting joint dismissal; Dkt. 10 final judgment) after a March 2019 notice of settlement (Dkt. 5). Sources: Docket Alarm docket sheet; RPX Empower; Justia docket index.

According to Maxell's own later filing in the companion Apple case, this ASUS action asserted the '794 patent plus U.S. Patent No. 6,765,616 (see Maxell's Dkt. 29 at 1 in Maxell v. Apple, 5:19-cv-00036, as reproduced here).

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd.

The single best-evidenced source is the signature block of the parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 8, filed April 30, 2019), which lists both the local firm and the national firm as "Counsel for Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd." (full text of Dkt. 8).

Local counsel — Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP (Texarkana, TX)

National/lead counsel — Mayer Brown LLP

In-house

No Maxell in-house attorney appears on the public docket. Maxell (Tokyo) and its US affiliate Maxell R&D America (Marshall, TX) are not represented by named in-house counsel in any filing in this case.

Important caveats on sourcing

• The docket is only 11 entries, and there are no pro hac vice applications or notices of attorney appearance by the Mayer Brown lawyers on the public docket in this case — consistent with the case settling ~4 months after service (waiver of service sent 12/17/2018, Dkt. 4; settlement 3/12/2019, Dkt. 5). So the Mayer Brown names are documented here through signature blocks on filed papers rather than through formal PHV/admission orders. In the parallel Maxell v. Apple case, by contrast, Beaber and Grimaldi did file formal appearances (Dkts. 5, 8) — showing the standard E.D. Tex. practice the team would have followed had this case continued.
• Roles ("lead," "of counsel") are inferred from signature-block ordering and from these lawyers' roles in Maxell's other, better-documented cases; the E.D. Tex. docket does not designate a lead counsel.
• Dkts. 5 and 6 are sealed in part — Dkt. 6 is the sealed Exhibit A Memorandum of Understanding (the settlement term sheet). Nothing indicates counsel identities were sealed.
• I verified this through Docket Alarm, RPX Empower, Justia and reproduced court filings rather than a direct PACER pull; if you need the PACER-authenticated docket, the ECF query is txed → 5:18-cv-00136.

For completeness, defendant ASUSTeK was represented by Alston & Bird LLP (Michael J. Newton, Derek S. Neilson, Brady Cox, Sang "Michael" Lee, Fannyben Patel — Dallas), per the same Dkt. 8 signature block.

I'll research the docket for defendant's counsel of record in this case.

Let me pull the actual docket entries and the joint motion, which would carry defense counsel's signature.

I have the signature block. Now let me verify the individual attorneys' roles and their PTAB/parallel-case involvement.

Counsel of Record for Defendant ASUSTeK Computer Inc. — Maxell, Ltd. v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 5:18-cv-00136-RWS (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

ASUS's defense team in this case was Alston & Bird LLP, out of the firm's Dallas office — five Texas‑barred lawyers who signed the case‑terminating joint filing as "Counsel for Defendant ASUSTeK Computer Inc." There was no separate local‑counsel firm on the defense side (unlike Maxell, which paired Mayer Brown with Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson of Texarkana), and no notice of appearance, answer, or Rule 12 motion ever appears on the docket — ASUS waived service on December 17, 2018 (Dkt. 4) and the case settled before any responsive pleading was due.

How the record establishes this (and its limits)

The E.D. Tex. docket for this case is only eleven entries long (complaint through AO 120 form), and none of them is a notice of appearance. Defense counsel is therefore identified from the signature blocks of the joint filings — principally Dkt. 8, Joint Motion to Dismiss (Apr. 30, 2019), which is signed /s/ Michael J. Newton and captioned "Counsel for Defendant ASUSTeK Computer Inc.," with a certificate of service listing all five Alston & Bird addresses. This is the primary-source document (Docket Alarm copy of Dkt. 8). The March 12, 2019 joint motion to stay (Dkt. 5) was also a joint filing, but the docket text lists Maxell's local counsel as the ECF filer and I did not review its signature block.

Caveat to state plainly: because no appearance was ever docketed, these five are "counsel of record" in the practical sense that they signed and served the operative joint papers on ASUS's behalf — not because the Clerk ever entered an appearance. Any assertion that a specific lawyer was "lead trial counsel" in this case would be an overstatement; the case never reached that stage.

The Alston & Bird team (Dallas — 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300, Dallas, TX 75201)

All five are Texas-barred and in the Dallas office, so Alston & Bird served as both lead and local counsel; no pro hac vice motions were needed or filed.

Related counsel who were not counsel in this case (useful context, clearly separate)

• Thomas W. Davison (Alston & Bird) — his firm bio lists him as "[c]ounsel for petitioners ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International" in ASUSTeK v. Maxell, IPR2019-00067, -00068, -00069, -00070, -00071. Those are the PTAB proceedings, not this district court case, but they were the pressure point that ran parallel to it and were terminated in April 2019 as part of the same global resolution.
• Christopher T.L. Douglas (Alston & Bird, Charlotte, NC; USPTO Reg. No. 56,950; co-chair of the firm's PTAB practice) — signed as lead counsel for petitioners on the joint motions to terminate in the ASUS v. Maxell IPRs (e.g., IPR2019-00068, Paper 7). Again PTAB only.
• ASUS Computer International, Inc. was not a defendant in 5:18-cv-00136 (Maxell sued only the Taiwanese parent), so nothing here reflects representation of the U.S. subsidiary.

Gaps and confidence

• No in-house counsel for ASUSTeK is identified in any docket entry.
• No formal appearance, answer, or dispositive motion by ASUS exists on this docket — the docket sheet ends with the AO 120 form (Dkt. 11, May 2, 2019). Anyone searching PACER for an "attorney appearance" in this case will find none.
• The Dkt. 6 sealed memorandum of understanding was filed by Maxell's local counsel (Culbertson) and its contents — including any counsel signatures — are not public.
• Confidence: high for the identity of the five Alston & Bird attorneys (primary-source signature block, Dkt. 8). Medium for the role characterizations of Cox, Lee, and Patel, since no independent source beyond the signature block was located; I have flagged rather than filled those gaps.

Sources: Docket Alarm docket sheet and PDF of Dkt. 8 for 5:18-cv-00136; Alston & Bird firm bios for Derek Neilson, Thomas Davison, and Christopher T.L. Douglas; Law360 firm/attorney page for Fannyben Patel; PTAB papers in IPR2019-00068 (joint motion to terminate) and IPR2016-00647 (ASUS power of attorney, listing Douglas as lead and Newton/Neilson as backup).