Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00440, is currently proceeding in the Marshall Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

The plaintiffs are Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, both affiliated with IPValue Management, Inc., which is known for patent monetization. These entities typically operate as Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs). The defendants are major global electronics manufacturers: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. (a Chinese semiconductor display manufacturer), LG Electronics, Inc. (a South Korean multinational electronics company), Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd., and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. (both Chinese multinational appliance and electronics manufacturers). The dispute centers on alleged infringement related to LCD technology, with the asserted patents having originated from an Epson LCD patent portfolio that was assigned to 138 East and then licensed to Longitude. The primary patent identified in the case is U.S. Patent No. 7,636,146, which broadly relates to display devices and methods for manufacturing them. While only 7,636,146 was specified, the case generally involves four patents.

The Eastern District of Texas, particularly the Marshall Division, is a highly significant venue for patent litigation due to its reputation as a "rocket docket." This court is known for its rapid litigation timetables, plaintiff-friendly local rules and juries, and judges experienced in patent cases, which historically has attracted a large volume of patent infringement filings, especially from NPEs. This case is notable as it exemplifies the ongoing trend of NPEs asserting patent portfolios against large operating companies in the consumer electronics and display industries. The involvement of major players like BOE, LG, and Hisense means the outcome could have a considerable impact across the global market for display technologies and related consumer products. Furthermore, there are active inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) related to the asserted patents, specifically IPR2025-01396 and IPR2025-01413, which are linked to the defendants' challenges against 138 East.

The patent infringement litigation, Longitude Licensing Limited et al. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al., case number 2:25-cv-00440, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on April 25, 2025. This case involves U.S. Patent No. 7,636,146, among others.

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

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: The case was initiated by Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd., and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. on April 25, 2025. The plaintiffs allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,636,146; 8,319,512; and 8,391,020.
• Answers and Counterclaims: Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims on September 8, 2025. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed its First Amended Counterclaims, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents, including the '146 patent, on September 16, 2025. The plaintiffs, 138 East LCD Advancements Limited and Longitude Licensing Limited, filed their Answer to LG Electronics' counterclaims on September 29, 2025.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims: On September 29, 2025, the plaintiffs, 138 East LCD Advancements Limited and Longitude Licensing Limited, along with IPValue Management, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss Defendant BOE's counterclaims Seven and Eight as duplicative and for failure to state a claim.
• Case Consolidation: The case 2:25-cv-00440 was consolidated with Case No. 2:25-cv-00358, both involving Longitude Licensing Limited et al. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap is presiding over the consolidated cases.
• Docket Control Order: A Docket Control Order was signed on December 4, 2025, outlining key deadlines. This order includes deadlines for dispositive motions and motions to strike expert testimony, with no such motions to be filed after December 7, 2026, without leave of the Court.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Claim Construction Hearing Scheduled: A Claim Construction Hearing (Markman) is scheduled for September 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The parties are required to comply with P.R. 4-5(d) (Joint Claim Construction Chart) by September 10, 2026, and P.R. 4-5(c) (Reply Claim Construction Brief) by September 3, 2026. The Docket Control Order also directs parties to include any arguments related to indefiniteness in their Markman briefing.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Fact Discovery Deadline: The deadline to complete fact discovery and file motions to compel discovery is October 26, 2026.
• Expert Discovery Deadlines: Disclosures for expert witnesses by the party with the burden of proof are due by October 26, 2026. Disclosures for rebuttal expert witnesses are due by November 16, 2026. The deadline to complete expert discovery is November 30, 2026.
• Invalidity Contentions: Invalidity contentions were due by January 5, 2026. Defendants are to disclose final invalidity theories, prior art references, and equitable defenses seven days before jury selection.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• Trial Date: Jury selection is currently set for March 15, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas. A pretrial conference is scheduled for February 8, 2027.
• Current Status: As of May 24, 2026, the case is active and ongoing, with future trial dates set.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently in the pre-trial phase, with no final judgment or appeal having occurred yet. The court encourages the parties to evaluate mediation after the claim construction order is issued.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-01396: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against the '146 patent on August 14, 2025. The Patent Owner (138 East LCD Advancements Limited) argued for discretionary denial of institution, citing Petitioner's delay and settled expectations, as the '146 patent issued on December 22, 2009. The Patent Owner also noted that the parallel district court proceeding favors discretionary denial, highlighting that BOE Technology has not moved to stay the district court case and that the Eastern District of Texas typically denies motions to stay when IPRs are instituted on less than all asserted claims of all asserted patents.
• IPR2025-01412: This IPR petition, also by BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. against 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, concerned U.S. Patent No. 8,391,020, another patent asserted in the consolidated district court case. Similar arguments were made regarding settled expectations and the parallel district court proceeding favoring discretionary denial of institution. The Board was expected to issue a final written decision around the same time as the district court's anticipated trial date in April 2027.

This analysis identifies the counsel of record representing Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, the plaintiffs in the patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00440 in the Texas Eastern District Court.

The following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs:

• William P. Ramey, III

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Ramey LLP, Houston, Texas.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Ramey is the founding partner of Ramey LLP, focusing on obtaining, enforcing, and licensing intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets across various technologies. He has experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants and has tried many cases as first chair to verdict. His firm actively litigates patent infringement cases in District Courts and the ITC. He has been recognized as a Super Lawyer in Intellectual Property Litigation from 2014-2024. However, it's notable that in December 2025, Judge Albright enjoined Ramey and his law firm from filing future patent cases in the Western District of Texas without advance judicial permission, and required the attachment of that order to any patent infringement complaint filed by them in the Western District, due to issues in a case against Volkswagen. He also faced monetary sanctions in another case in the Northern District of California in April 2025.

• Stephen M. Tillery

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Korein Tillery LLC, St. Louis, Missouri.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Tillery is the senior member of Korein Tillery, LLC, and has litigated cases throughout the United States in numerous areas of law, including patent infringement. He has handled, individually or as lead counsel, hundreds of complex civil cases, with many resulting in multimillion-dollar verdicts or settlements. Korein Tillery emphasizes its experience in complex litigation and representing clients in high-stakes lawsuits.

• Robert J. Klingler

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: While prior searches indicate an IP practice, current firm information for his role in this case is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Klingler's intellectual property practice spans over three decades and includes procuring, enforcing, and monetizing large patent portfolios, as well as offensive and defensive patent litigation. He has prosecuted over a thousand U.S. and foreign patents and has successfully asserted and defended patent infringement cases.

• W. Jason Ham

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Litten & Sipe, LLP. (Office location not specified in provided snippets, but he is described as being from the Isle of Wight, England, and having spent most of his life in "the Valley" in the US). Another firm, "Wilson & Ham," also has an attorney named Thomas Ham with patent experience in San Jose, California, but it is not explicitly stated if this is the same individual or a different one. A firm called "Hauptman Ham" with offices in Alexandria, VA, also practices IP law.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Ham is an experienced litigator and advocate with extensive trial experience, representing clients in the prosecution and defense of various civil actions, though his specific patent litigation experience is not detailed in the provided snippets for this firm. However, his "Super Lawyer" selections in general litigation are noted for many years.

Please note that the docket information retrieved was last updated on October 21, 2025, and more recent filings might contain updates to counsel appearances.

This patent infringement case, 2:25-cv-00440, filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, involves multiple defendants: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd., and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd.. The case was consolidated for pretrial issues with 2:25-cv-00440 as the lead case.

Counsel who have appeared on behalf of the defendants include:

For BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.

• Kenneth S. Chang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets for this case, but a "Han IP PLLC" firm with expertise in patent and IP law and a global perspective is mentioned in general search results. A "Han Kun" firm in Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen also has a full-scope IP legal services practice. Additionally, a David Chen, Esq., with experience in patent and trademark prosecution, litigation, licensing, and counseling, is listed under "IP Attorneys Group LLC" in Milford, CT.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: While specific experience for Kenneth S. Chang is not detailed in the snippets, firms like Han IP PLLC and Han Kun specialize in patent and IP law, offering offensive and defensive strategies, patent prosecution, and litigation support. David Chen, Esq., has successfully obtained a verdict of non-infringement in a trademark infringement case in China.

• Kristopher L. Reed

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets.

For LG Electronics, Inc.

• No specific attorneys for LG Electronics, Inc. are named in the provided search results as having entered an appearance in this case, although LG Electronics, Inc. has filed an answer and counterclaims.

For Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd. and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd.

• No specific attorneys for Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd. or Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. are named in the provided search results as having entered an appearance in this case.

It's important to note that the docket information retrieved was last updated on October 21, 2025, and more recent filings might contain updates to counsel appearances. Some general search results also showed other firms known for patent litigation that could represent defendants in such cases, including:

• Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP: Known for high-stakes patent litigation across various industries, with a strong track record of trial victories and experience defending against non-practicing entities. They have a deep bench of lawyers with technical backgrounds and experience in federal and state courts, the USITC, and USPTO.
• Haynes and Boone, LLP: Has a Chambers-ranked intellectual property practice group with highly regarded national patent litigation teams. They have extensive experience in major patent litigation venues, including the Eastern District of Texas, and are active before the PTAB and the Federal Circuit.
• Kirkland & Ellis LLP: Revered trial lawyers with extensive experience in patent infringement cases across various venues, including district courts, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, and the PTAB. They are known for their trial-ready approach and strong appellate practice.
• Fish & Richardson P.C.: The leading IP law firm, handling more patent cases in District Courts, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, and the PTAB than any other national firm. They have a large team of attorneys and technology specialists with deep technical knowledge.

However, without specific docket entries showing their appearance in this particular case for the listed defendants, these firms cannot be definitively stated as representing the defendants.