Untitled case

The patent infringement litigation 2:18-cv-00343 in the Eastern District of Texas involves plaintiff EVS Codec Technologies, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE), and defendant LG Electronics Inc. along with LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.. EVS Codec Technologies is a patent asserter that appears to acquire patents for the purpose of licensing or litigation. The specific patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524. This patent broadly describes a perceptual weighting device and method for efficient coding of wideband signals (0-7000 Hz), aiming to reduce the difference between a weighted wideband signal and a subsequently synthesized weighted wideband signal, ultimately to achieve a high-quality reconstructed signal in fixed-point algorithmic implementations. The accused products are likely LG's electronic devices, particularly those involving communication technologies, given the nature of the asserted patent and the defendant.

The case was filed on August 6, 2018, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent litigation, known for its plaintiff-friendly reputation, fast trials, and judges with extensive experience in patent cases. While the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017 initially led to a decline in filings in EDTX by restricting venue, the district has seen a resurgence in patent case filings, becoming one of the busiest patent courts in the nation. The case was ultimately closed on January 10, 2019, following a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

This case is notable as it exemplifies the ongoing trend of patent assertions by NPEs in the communications sector, leveraging patents related to core technologies like audio and signal processing. The choice of the Eastern District of Texas highlights its continued strategic importance for patent plaintiffs, despite evolving venue rules, due to its procedural efficiencies and perceived plaintiff advantages. The quick closure of the case, less than six months after filing, due to a jurisdictional dismissal rather than a full trial or settlement on the merits, indicates a significant procedural victory for the defendants, especially in a venue often favored by plaintiffs.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments and outcome for the patent infringement litigation case 2:18-cv-00343 in the Eastern District of Texas, involving U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524:

Case Caption: EVS Codec Technologies, LLC v. LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., and LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.
Case Number: 2:18-cv-00343-JRG
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,795,805; 6,807,524; 7,151,802; 7,260,521; and 7,191,123.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: EVS Codec Technologies, LLC (and Saint Lawrence Communications LLC, collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (collectively "LG") in the Eastern District of Texas. The Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 70) alleged infringement of multiple patents, including U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524, which relate to the Enhanced Voice Services Codec Standard (EVS Standard). The initial complaint was filed on August 6, 2018.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance (Motion to Transfer): LG filed a Second Renewed Motion to Transfer Pursuant to a Forum Selection Clause (Dkt. No. 73) and a Motion for a Temporary Stay of the Litigation Pending Resolution of the Transfer Motion (Dkt. No. 87).

• Transfer Order: On July 5, 2019, District Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order. The Court granted LG's Second Renewed Motion to Transfer, transferring the case out of the Eastern District of Texas. The accompanying Motion for a Temporary Stay was consequently denied as moot. The specific destination of the transfer is not detailed in the provided snippet but implies a contractual forum selection clause.

• Claim Construction (Markman) & Discovery Milestones: Due to the early transfer of the case in July 2019, it is unlikely that the litigation in the Eastern District of Texas progressed to substantive claim construction (Markman) hearings or significant discovery milestones before its transfer.

• Trial, Verdict, Post-trial Motions, Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal: The case was transferred from the Eastern District of Texas, indicating that no trial, verdict, or final judgment on the merits occurred in that court. The final disposition of the case would have occurred in the transferee court, which is not identified in the provided information.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings: The provided search results do not indicate any parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings specifically initiated for U.S. Patent No. 6,807,524 related to this specific case (2:18-cv-00343 E.D. Tex.). Other general references to IPRs exist, but not directly linked to this particular patent or parties in this case.

The case 2:18-cv-00343, filed in the Eastern District of Texas as EVS Codec Technologies, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., concerning patent 6807524, was granted a motion to transfer on July 5, 2019. However, the available public records do not explicitly state the specific court to which the case was transferred. Without this crucial information, it is not possible to identify the current counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) with certainty, as counsel may have changed upon transfer or new local counsel may have been engaged in the transferee jurisdiction.

The defendant, LG Electronics Inc. along with LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., was represented by attorneys from Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and local counsel from Jackson Walker LLP.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record:

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

• Jonathan James Underwood (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Dallas, TX.
  • Relevant Experience: Experienced in all phases of patent infringement litigation, including ANDA litigation, at both trial and appellate levels. He defends clients in patent infringement suits and asserts patent rights. Dr. Underwood holds a Ph.D. in synthetic organic chemistry, providing significant scientific acumen to his cases.
• Matthew Pearson (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Philadelphia, PA (based on typical Akin Gump office locations for patent litigators, though not explicitly stated for this case in search results).
  • Relevant Experience: Focuses on patent litigation, particularly in biopharma and life sciences. He is an adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School teaching patent litigation and frequently speaks on patent litigation, biologics, and biosimilars.
• Thomas W. Landers IV (Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Dallas, TX (based on typical Akin Gump office locations for patent litigators, though not explicitly stated for this case in search results).
  • Relevant Experience: Practices complex patent litigation and intellectual property counseling across various technologies, including biotechnology, telecommunications, and medical devices. He has represented clients before U.S. district courts, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the Federal Circuit, with significant experience in Alice case law, patent venue, and claim construction. Akin Gump has a strong reputation for patent litigation, with a team possessing deep technical knowledge and experience across numerous complex patent cases in federal district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the PTAB.

Jackson Walker LLP

• Local Counsel (specific attorneys not identified in accessible records for this case, but Jackson Walker LLP is known for its extensive patent litigation practice in the Eastern District of Texas).
  • Firm Office: Texas (various offices).
  • Relevant Experience: Jackson Walker's Intellectual Property Litigation group has significant patent litigation experience in federal civil courts of the Eastern District of Texas, representing numerous clients, including Fortune 500 companies, in litigation involving patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade dress, and trade secrets. They handle all types of intellectual property matters in federal and state courts across the United States.