Untitled case

In a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:17-cv-00123, plaintiffs Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, and PanOptis Patent Management, LLC (collectively "PanOptis"), a patent licensing company, sued defendants Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (collectively "Huawei"), a Chinese technology giant known for its smartphones and tablets. The litigation accused Huawei's products, including its Honor smartphone and MediaPad tablet lines, of infringing patents related to their 4G LTE capabilities and ability to decode video and audio data. While the initial complaint in February 2017 listed U.S. Patent No. 7,940,851 among others, the case proceeded to trial on five patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,769,238; 6,604,216; 8,208,569; 8,385,284; and 8,437,293. Four of these patents cover wireless technology declared essential to the LTE cellular standard, while U.S. Patent No. 7,769,238 pertains to video-coding technology, overlapping with the H.264 standard. U.S. Patent No. 7,940,851, originally asserted, relates to a method and system for real-time video processing.

The case was presided over by U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent litigation, often referred to as a "rocket docket," known for its expedited trial schedules and a reputation for plaintiff-friendly verdicts, especially in cases brought by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). This venue's procedural rules and judges' historical reluctance to stay cases pending Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) review made it attractive to patentees. Following a jury trial held from August 20-24, 2018, the jury found on August 27, 2018, that Huawei had willfully infringed the five asserted patents and awarded PanOptis $10.6 million in compensatory damages. A final judgment was entered on March 18, 2019, which also established ongoing royalty rates for Huawei's infringing conduct.

This litigation is notable because it involves a patent licensing entity asserting Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) against a major technology manufacturer, a common scenario that often raises issues of Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations. The jury's substantial damages award and the court's subsequent determination of ongoing royalty rates underscore the commercial value of the asserted patents. Furthermore, the case highlighted a "patent holdout" dynamic, where the implementer (Huawei) allegedly resisted taking a license. The court later granted PanOptis's motion for exceptional case status and awarded attorney fees due to Huawei's litigation conduct, specifically noting "rank gamesmanship" in Huawei's strategic delay in withdrawing FRAND affirmative defenses.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Optis Wireless Technology, LLC et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al. (2:17-cv-00123)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, involved plaintiff Optis Wireless Technology, LLC, PanOptis Patent Management, LLC, and Optis Cellular Technology, LLC (collectively "PanOptis") against defendants Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., and Huawei Device Co. Ltd. (collectively "Huawei"). While the initial complaint included U.S. Patent No. 7,940,851, this patent was later dropped from the asserted claims before trial. The case proceeded to trial on five other patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,769,238; 6,604,216; 8,437,293; 8,385,284; and 8,208,569.

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

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2017-02-10: PanOptis filed the initial complaint against Huawei, alleging infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,940,851.
• 2017-04-17: PanOptis filed a Third Amended Complaint.
• Huawei asserted numerous affirmative defenses and counterclaims, including challenges to PanOptis's compliance with Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) obligations for standard-essential patents (SEPs).

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• 2017-10: Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne was appointed to the case.
• 2018-01-18: PanOptis filed an emergency motion for an anti-suit injunction to prevent Huawei from pursuing anti-monopoly claims in Chinese courts that could impact the U.S. litigation.
• 2018-05-14: The court denied PanOptis's motion for an anti-suit injunction, adopting a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation from April 24, 2018.
• 2018-05-14: Deadline for filing dispositive motions.
• 2018-07-02: A Docket Control Order was issued, setting various pretrial deadlines, including motions in limine and expert discovery. This order also specified that arguments related to indefiniteness should be included in Markman briefing.
• 2018-07-11: Magistrate Judge Payne issued a Memorandum Opinion, Order, and Recommendation addressing several motions for summary judgment, including those related to infringement, damages, and FRAND declaratory judgment claims. Huawei also filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction concerning FRAND claims related to non-U.S. patents.
• Before trial, PanOptis dropped its infringement assertions for U.S. Patent No. 7,940,851 and U.S. Patent No. 8,102,833. The case proceeded on five other patents.

Claim Construction (Markman):

• A Markman hearing was held in late January (presumably 2018), and a claim construction order was issued.

Discovery Milestones:

• 2018-03-19: Deadline to complete fact discovery.
• 2018-05-14: Deadline to complete expert discovery.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• 2018-08-20: A jury trial commenced before Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2018-08-24: The jury returned a unanimous verdict, finding that Huawei infringed five of PanOptis's patents. The jury awarded PanOptis $10.6 million in damages and found Huawei's infringement to be willful. The jury also found that none of the asserted patents were invalid.
• The court held a separate bench trial on the FRAND declaratory judgment claims, which Huawei had initially raised as defenses before withdrawing them.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• 2019-03-18: Final Judgment was entered in favor of PanOptis. The court awarded PanOptis the jury's $10.6 million verdict, plus $2.6 million in enhanced damages due to willful infringement, bringing the total to over $13 million. The court also ordered ongoing royalties from Huawei. However, Judge Gilstrap declined to issue a declaratory judgment that PanOptis had complied with its FRAND obligations, citing insufficient evidence.
• 2019-11-15: Judge Gilstrap granted PanOptis's motion for exceptional case status and attorneys' fees, finding that Huawei's "staged delay" in withdrawing its FRAND defenses amounted to "rank gamesmanship" and supported an award of all of PanOptis's attorneys' fees and expenses. This order was later vacated on other grounds in 2020.
• The case has seen subsequent appeals. Huawei appealed the judgment, and the Federal Circuit heard arguments in December 2019. The Federal Circuit subsequently issued an opinion in January 2021, vacating and remanding parts of the district court's judgment. The case was ultimately remanded to the district court for further proceedings, including a new trial on damages.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A docket control order from July 2, 2018, references IPR2018-00658 in the context of "Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Optis Wireless Technology, LLC." Further details on this specific IPR's relation to the ultimately asserted patents or the dropped '851 patent, and its outcome, would require a direct search of the PTAB database. Given that the '851 patent was dropped from the district court litigation, any IPR related specifically to that patent would not have directly impacted the trial's outcome on the patents that were actually asserted.

Based on publicly available information, the plaintiff in this patent infringement case (Optis Wireless Technology LLC et al. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00123) is a collective referred to as "PanOptis," comprising Optis Wireless Technology LLC, PanOptis Patent Management LLC, and Optis Cellular Technology, LLC.

As of the 2018 jury verdict, the lead trial counsel representing PanOptis was identified as:

• Theodore "Ted" Stevenson III
  • Role: Lead Trial Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: At the time of the 2018 verdict, Mr. Stevenson was with McKool Smith PC, Dallas, TX. He subsequently left McKool Smith in June 2021 to join Alston & Bird in Dallas, TX, where he is currently a partner.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Stevenson is a highly experienced trial lawyer and registered patent attorney with over 25 years of focus on intellectual property and competition cases, particularly those involving standard essential patent (SEP) licensing. He has successfully tried numerous patent and technology cases involving diverse technologies such as cellular telephones, integrated circuits, and enterprise software. Notable achievements include securing a $145.1 million patent infringement verdict for WiLAN Inc. against Apple Inc. in 2018 and a $75 million verdict for Ericsson against TCL in 2017.

Given that the case is listed as "ongoing" in 2026, and Mr. Stevenson changed firms in 2021, it is unclear from public records whether he continues to represent PanOptis in this specific case from his new firm, or if other attorneys from McKool Smith or new counsel have taken over the lead role.

McKool Smith is a prominent firm in patent litigation, especially in the Eastern District of Texas, and has a track record of securing significant verdicts for plaintiffs in intellectual property cases. Another attorney from McKool Smith known for their work with "PanOptis" includes:

• Steven J. Pollinger
  • Role: Principal (potential co-counsel, as he has represented PanOptis in other matters)
  • Firm & Office Location: McKool Smith, Austin, TX.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Pollinger is a trial lawyer and registered patent attorney with over 30 years of experience in patent and intellectual property litigation, holding a master's degree in electrical engineering. He has achieved courtroom victories in cases involving various software, electronics, and medical device technologies. He notably secured a $300 million damages verdict for PanOptis against Apple in August 2021.

Without direct access to the most recent docket entries for 2:17-cv-00123, a definitive and exhaustive list of all current counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) cannot be provided. The information above reflects the last clearly identified lead counsel for the plaintiff around the time of the main trial, and another key attorney from the same firm who has represented the plaintiff entity in related patent litigation.

The defendants in Optis Wireless Technology LLC et al. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al. (2:17-cv-00123 E.D. Tex.) are Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.. They have been represented by counsel from Covington & Burling LLP, Blue Peak Law Group LLP, and Siebman Burg Phillips & Smith LLP.

The counsel of record identified for the defendants, along with their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience, are as follows:

Covington & Burling LLP (multiple offices including Palo Alto, CA; San Francisco, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Washington, DC; and New York, NY)

• Robert T. Haslam
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, Palo Alto, CA (formerly listed with Redwood Shores, CA)
  • Experience Note: Senior counsel with a practice emphasizing patent and trade secret litigation, including cases involving semiconductor products, GPS, and cellular technology. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.
• Stanley Young
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, Palo Alto, CA
  • Experience Note: Partner specializing in patent, trade secret, and high-stakes intellectual property litigation in various industries, including telecommunications and semiconductors. He has experience with standard-essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND obligations.
• Anupam Sharma
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, Palo Alto, CA
  • Experience Note: Partner focusing on patent and trade secret litigation in federal district courts and the ITC, with extensive experience in technical analysis for patent validity, infringement, and enforceability across various technologies like semiconductors and microprocessor design.
• Thomas E. Garten
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, Palo Alto, CA (also San Francisco, CA)
  • Experience Note: Represents global technology companies in complex patent infringement and trade secret disputes in federal courts and ITC investigations, managing complex discovery and developing damages strategies.
• James Hovard
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, likely Redwood Shores, CA (based on older docket entries referencing this office for other Covington attorneys in the case)
  • Experience Note: While specific details on James Hovard's patent litigation experience are not extensively detailed in the provided search results, his inclusion in the counsel team indicates involvement in complex patent litigation matters for technology companies.
• Gregory S. Nieberg
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP (office not specified in readily available results, but likely one of their California offices given other team members)
  • Experience Note: Specific details on Gregory Nieberg's patent litigation experience are not extensively detailed in the provided search results. His involvement suggests a role in supporting complex patent litigation for technology clients.
• Paul J. Wilson
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, New York, NY (based on a general search for Paul Wilson at Covington & Burling, though his profile emphasizes international arbitration, earlier mentions place him with the New York office for this case).
  • Experience Note: Focuses on complex, multi-forum patent and technology litigation in the ITC, district courts, and the Federal Circuit, representing clients in electronics, smartphone, and semiconductor industries.
• Ali Mojibi
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP, Los Angeles, CA (formerly listed with Washington, DC)
  • Experience Note: A trial lawyer with a technical background, he handles patent and trade secret litigation, complex commercial disputes in technology and healthcare, and enforcement of restrictive covenants.
• Christopher G. Higby
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Covington & Burling LLP (office not specified in readily available results, but older docket entries for other Covington attorneys in the case listed a Washington, DC office for Higby).
  • Experience Note: Specific details on Christopher Higby's patent litigation experience are not extensively detailed in the provided search results. His repeated mention in counsel lists for Huawei suggests significant involvement in patent litigation.

Blue Peak Law Group LLP (multiple offices including New York, NY; Houston, TX; Silicon Valley, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Boise, ID)

• Heng Gong
  • Role: Partner (Previously Special Counsel at Covington & Burling LLP)
  • Firm & Office: Blue Peak Law Group LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: A trial lawyer specializing in patent and intellectual property disputes across a wide range of technologies, with extensive experience representing major Asia-based technology companies like Huawei in District Courts, PTAB, and ITC.

Siebman Burg Phillips & Smith LLP (multiple offices including Marshall, TX; Sherman, TX; Plano, TX; Dallas, TX)

• Michael C. Smith
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Siebman Burg Phillips & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX
  • Experience Note: Partner at a firm focused on intellectual property and business litigation in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas, providing local perspective and serving as lead trial counsel on Texas litigation.