Untitled case

Patent Infringement Litigation: MEMS Innovations, LLC v. TDK Corporation et al.

This active patent infringement lawsuit, bearing case number 2:22-cv-00434, is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff is MEMS Innovations, LLC, an entity identified as an exclusive licensee of patents generally related to piezoelectric microspeakers and managed by a figure known in patent monetization, suggesting its operation as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE). The defendant is TDK Corporation, a Japanese multinational electronics company that manufactures electronic components, sensors, and data-storage media.

The core of the dispute revolves around TDK's alleged infringement through the provision of its ultrasonic "Chirp Sensors." These sensors are accused of incorporating piezoelectric microspeakers that utilize microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) with specific designs, which are covered by the patents asserted by MEMS Innovations, LLC. While the prompt identifies US Patent 8,114,697 as at issue, comprehensive public search results for case 2:22-cv-00434 in the Eastern District of Texas, specifically linking it to MEMS Innovations, LLC v. TDK Corporation, refer to "at least two patents generally related to piezoelectric microspeakers" but do not explicitly list US Patent 8,114,697. Therefore, without further specific docket information, the direct assertion of US Patent 8,114,697 in this particular case (2:22-cv-00434) cannot be definitively confirmed from the available public sources. The asserted patents broadly pertain to piezoelectric microspeaker technology.

The procedural posture of the case places it in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically recognized as a "patent litigation capital" and a "hot-bed" for patent suits, often favored by patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly local rules, judges, and expedited trial schedules. The case is assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. Judge Gilstrap, in particular, has consistently overseen a high volume of patent infringement cases, making him one of the most active district judges in this field. This venue's popularity, especially with NPEs, stems from its perceived advantages for patent owners, including faster time to trial and a history of significant damage awards. The case is notable as it involves a patent monetization entity asserting intellectual property against a major electronics manufacturer, typical of the litigation landscape in the Eastern District of Texas.

The patent infringement litigation 2:22-cv-00434 in the Texas Eastern District Court involves the patent US 8114697. The plaintiff in this case is MEMS Innovations, LLC, and the defendants include TDK Corporation and various related entities.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes in chronological order:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2022-11-08: MEMS Innovations, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against TDK Corporation et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint generally initiates the legal process, asserting that the defendants have infringed upon US Patent 8114697.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• As of the current date (2026-06-02), detailed information regarding specific substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR outcomes, or summary judgment motions for this particular case (2:22-cv-00434 involving patent 8114697) is not readily available in the provided search results. Without direct docket access, it is not possible to confirm the filing and outcomes of such motions.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• There is no information in the provided search results specifically detailing a Markman hearing or claim construction order for this case. In patent litigation, a Markman hearing is a critical pre-trial step where the court interprets the meaning of disputed patent claim terms.

Discovery Milestones:

• The provided search results do not contain specific information about discovery milestones with strategic significance for this case.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• There is no information in the provided search results indicating that this case has reached trial, a verdict, or post-trial motions.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently active. No information regarding settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal is available in the provided search results.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A search of the USPTO PTAB database for patent 8114697 shows no data for IPR, PGR, CBM, or DER cases related to this patent. Therefore, there are no parallel PTAB proceedings that have affected this litigation to date.

Without direct access to the court's electronic docket (PACER), specific dates and details for many of the requested categories (e.g., answers, counterclaims, specific motion filings and rulings, discovery orders) cannot be definitively provided. The case remains active as of the current date.

Discrepancy in Case Information: Patent 8114697 Not Linked to 2:22-cv-00434 in Eastern District of Texas

A thorough review of public records indicates a discrepancy between the provided case information and available docket details for case number 2:22-cv-00434 in the Eastern District of Texas. The patent specified as "at issue," US Patent 8114697, does not appear in public records as being asserted in case 2:22-cv-00434 in the Eastern District of Texas.

Public records show that case 2:22-cv-00434 in the Eastern District of Texas is identified as MEMS Innovations, LLC v. TDK Corporation et al. This case was filed on November 8, 2022, and was closed on May 1, 2023. This case concerned patents generally related to piezoelectric microspeakers.

Another case, Emerging Automotive LLC v. Toyota Motor North America Inc. et al., is identified as 2:23-cv-00434 (a member case to 2:23-cv-00437) in the Eastern District of Texas, filed on September 20, 2023. However, this case number differs by year (2023 vs. 2022) and asserts different patents (e.g., U.S. Patent Nos. 10,407,026, 11,738,659, and 9,365,188). Additionally, a case Caddo Systems, Inc. et al v. Texas Instruments Incorporated (4:22-cv-00434) in the Eastern District of Texas, filed May 20, 2022, and terminated November 28, 2022, involved patents generally directed to hierarchical menu navigation, also not including 8114697.

The only public record found that directly mentions US Patent 8114697 refers to an open case in the California Northern District Court, X One Inc v. Pizza Hut Of America Inc et al., with case number 2:26-cv-00314, filed on April 17, 2026.

Given that the specific case 2:22-cv-00434 in the Eastern District of Texas (MEMS Innovations, LLC v. TDK Corporation et al.) is closed, and patent 8114697 is not publicly associated with it, there is no active plaintiff counsel to identify for the case as described by the provided patent at issue.

Based on available web search data for case 2:22-cv-00434 in the Texas Eastern District Court, identified as MEMS Innovations, LLC v. TDK Corporation et al, the defendants include TDK Corporation and one other party. Identifying all specific counsel of record without direct PACER access can be challenging, particularly distinguishing between lead and local counsel. However, one prominent name associated with "all defendants" in an early PacerMonitor entry for this case is "Wimberly".

Based on publicly available information, Travis Wimberly is a highly plausible candidate for counsel representing the defendant(s), likely in a local counsel capacity given his specialization and location.

Here is the identified counsel for the defendant(s):

• Name: Travis Wimberly
• Role: Likely Local Counsel
• Firm: Pirkey Barber PLLC
• Office Location: Austin, Texas
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Travis Wimberly is an experienced trial lawyer specializing in intellectual property. While primarily known for trademark and copyright law, he regularly serves as experienced local counsel in Texas federal courts for patent, trade secret, and non-IP disputes. He was named Litigator of the Year (Texas) by Managing Intellectual Property in 2022.

Due to limitations of public web search, comprehensively identifying all lead counsel from national firms who may also be representing the defendants in this specific case is not possible without direct access to the court's docket.