Untitled case

VIDEOLABS Inc., described as a patent assertion entity (PAE) and intellectual property licensing and patent aggregation company, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Hisense Co. Ltd. and several of its subsidiaries, including Guiyang Hisense Electronics Co., Ltd. and Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. de C.V.. VideoLabs, which acquires patent portfolios from various operating companies to offer a licensing platform, asserts that Hisense's streaming products—such as dongles, projectors, set-top boxes, and televisions—infringe its intellectual property. These accused products allegedly support the H.264 compression standard and/or are compatible with High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP), including certain Roku-series software products.

The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 8,291,236, which generally pertains to digital media processing, covering complementary aspects of video data handling or compression standards. The lawsuit is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:24-cv-00904, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S Payne also referred. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, known for its plaintiff-friendly procedural rules and accelerated trial schedules. Although the TC Heartland decision restricted patent venue, plaintiffs have adapted strategies, sometimes targeting foreign affiliates, to maintain litigation in this district.

This case is notable due to VideoLabs' business model as a PAE that aggregates patents related to video technology, aiming to create an efficient licensing landscape for the video industry. The patents at issue, particularly those related to video codecs and compression standards like H.264, often implicate industry standards, potentially raising defenses such as FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing and patent exhaustion. Further underscoring the adversarial nature of this dispute, Hisense USA Corporation, an affiliate of the defendants, initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01329) against VideoLabs, Inc. on July 24, 2025, challenging the validity of related patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in parallel with this district court litigation.

I'll research the docket history and key developments in this case through multiple targeted searches.

I have substantial material. Let me verify the key procedural events — the transfer motion, the stay, the PTAB outcomes, and the reported dismissal.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — VideoLabs, Inc. v. Hisense Co. Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00904 (E.D. Tex.)

⚠️ Threshold conflicts with the case metadata / prior sections (flagging as instructed)

1. Status. The case metadata lists the case as "Active." The docket evidence indicates the case was dismissed with prejudice on 2025-11-10 (Dkt. 60–61) and that related PTAB proceedings were terminated in October–November 2025. The metadata appears stale.
2. Patents at issue. The metadata (and the earlier overview) says the sole patent is U.S. 8,291,236. The complaint as filed actually asserted five patents — the '236, plus U.S. 8,667,304 ('304), 7,769,238 ('238), 7,970,059 ('059) and 8,605,794 ('794). The '236 is simply the patent carried in the "patents at issue" field. All five were litigated together, and the IPR campaign covered several of them.
3. IPR2025-01329 date/patent. The prior "Case overview" section states Hisense filed IPR2025-01329 on 2025-07-24 and describes it as challenging "related patents." Docket-Alarm/GreyB data show the petition was filed 2025-07-25 and it challenges the '238 patent, not the '236.
4. Counsel. The earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section names Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth as VideoLabs' counsel. The docket shows VideoLabs was in fact represented by Bunsow DeMory LLP (Margaret Elizabeth Day, Marc Belloli, Jerry Tice II, Hillary Noonsow Bunsow). Separately, Fish & Richardson's Linhong Zhang withdrew (Dkt. 33, granted 2025-06-05). These entries should be corrected.
5. **AI-generated sources

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel of record for VideoLabs in this case.

I have strong leads. Let me verify the plaintiff-side appearances and firm details, and check the docket's later posture.

Let me confirm the full plaintiff-side roster and any local counsel, plus the case's current status (which appears to conflict with the metadata).

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiff(s)

Plaintiffs: VideoLabs, Inc. ("VL") and VL Collective IP LLC ("VL IP") — the latter was added in the operative pleading as owner of the '794 patent. Both plaintiffs are represented by the same team.

⚠️ Note on case posture first: the docket now reflects that this action was resolved and dismissed with prejudice in late 2025 (joint motion to dismiss filed by VideoLabs and all seven Hisense defendants; E.D. Tex. Dkt. No. 60, with the dismissal order at Dkt. No. 61 — CourtListener lists these as "Dismiss Pursuant to Settlement" (Nov. 3, 2025) and "Order Dismissing Case" (Nov. 10, 2025); third-party trackers show the case as closed mid‑October 2025). This contradicts the case metadata ("Active") and the earlier-generated "Key legal developments" section (which stated as of May 2026 that the case "remains active," that "no Markman hearing has been held," and that no stay/dismissal had occurred). The counsel identified below should therefore be understood as counsel of record as of the dismissal — no new appearances are expected.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Bunsow De Mory LLP

All confirmed plaintiff-side appearances in 2:24-cv-00904 trace to Bunsow De Mory LLP (firm branding "BDIPLAW"), 701 El Camino Real, Redwood City, CA 94063. Third-party litigation trackers (PatSnap, Ex Parte) likewise list Bunsow DeMory LLP (Redwood City) as the sole plaintiff firm in this case. I found no separate Texas local-counsel firm on the plaintiff side in this docket (unlike Hisense, which used Parker Bunt & Ainsworth / Charles Ainsworth as local counsel).

In-house contact (PTAB filings, not district-court counsel): William Goldman, SVP, Chief IP Counsel, VideoLabs, Inc., signed the Patent Owner Power of Attorney in the parallel Roku IPRs.

PTAB counsel for VideoLabs (separate capacity — same firm)

For the parallel Hisense IPRs against the '236 patent (IPR2025-00880/00882/00883 series, as identified in Patents Act filings), VideoLabs' lead counsel is Wayne M. Helge (Reg. No. 56,905) and back-up counsel is James T. Wilson (Reg. No. 41,439), both of Bunsow De Mory LLP's Alexandria, VA office, with M. Elizabeth Day also served as district-court counsel of record. These are PTAB appearances and should not be conflated with the district-court roster.

Gaps, uncertainties, and flagged contradictions

• No appearance on the record for VL Collective IP LLC separately — I found no distinct counsel entry for VL IP; it appears to share VideoLabs' Bunsow De Mory team.
• Hillary Bunsow and Aaron Hand appearances: their involvement is documented in related VideoLabs matters and on counsel/service lists, but I could not confirm a formal Notice of Appearance by either on this docket (2:24-cv-00904). Day, Tice, and Belloli have confirmed appearance entries.
• Contradictions with the provided metadata / prior sections to flag:
  1. Case status: metadata says "Active"; the docket shows dismissal with prejudice (~Oct–Nov 2025). Prior section's statement that the case was active with no Markman as of May 2026 is incorrect — a Docket Control Order (signed Oct. 8, 2025) had set Markman for 7/9/2026 and trial for 1/11/2027 before the case was dismissed.
  2. Patents at issue: metadata lists only U.S. Pat. 8,291,236; the operative Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 31, May 13, 2025) asserted five patents — the '236, '304, '238, '059, and '794. The prior section's "sole patent at issue" framing is inaccurate.
  3. Filing date: the prior "Key legal developments" section listed a March 1, 2024 complaint; the docket shows the complaint was filed November 6, 2024, with amended complaints on March 31, 2025 (Dkt. 25) and May 13, 2025 (Dkt. 31).
  4. Stay: a stay was entered/denied at points (CourtListener reflects an "Order on Motion to Stay" near Oct. 14, 2025), rather than the "no motion to stay found" position in the prior section.
• Sourcing caveat: attorney-firm attributions above are drawn from PACER-derived docket mirrors (CourtListener, Docket Alarm/Ex Parte, Justia), PTAB filings on USPTO PTABCTS, and firm/ranking profiles (BDIPLAW, IAM Patent 1000, Best Lawyers). I did not access PACER directly; individual appearance documents were not all reviewed in full, so roles marked "lead/partner" are inferred from filing activity and firm sources rather than an explicit court designation.

I apologize for the error in the previous tool code. I will correct it and proceed with the search.
The defendant in this case, Hisense Co. Ltd. and its subsidiaries, are represented by attorneys from several firms.

Counsel for Defendants Hisense Co. Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co. Ltd. F/K/A Qingdao Hisense Electric Co. Ltd., Hisense International Co. Ltd., Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investments Co. Ltd., Guiyang Hisense Electronics Co., Ltd., Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. de C.V., and Hisense International (HK) Co. Ltd.:

• Linhong Zhang

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. - Washington D.C.
  • Role: Attorney
  • Experience: Linhong Zhang has appeared on behalf of Hisense in this case. Fish & Richardson P.C. is a prominent intellectual property law firm.

• Joseph V. Colaianni, Jr.

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. - Washington D.C.
  • Role: Attorney
  • Experience: Joseph V. Colaianni, Jr. has appeared on behalf of Hisense in this case. He is also noted as counsel in the IPR proceeding IPR2025-01329 filed by Hisense USA Corporation against VideoLabs, Inc.

• Richard F. Martinelli

  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP - NY
  • Role: Attorney, Petitioner Counsel in IPR2025-01329
  • Experience: Richard F. Martinelli is involved in the parallel IPR proceeding challenging VideoLabs' patent. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP is a global law firm with significant intellectual property litigation experience.

• Timothy J. Carroll

  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • Role: Attorney
  • Experience: Timothy J. Carroll is listed as an attorney for Hisense.

• Thomas Alden James

  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • Role: Attorney
  • Experience: Thomas Alden James is listed as an attorney for Hisense.

• Bas de Blank

  • Firm: Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe - Menlo Park
  • Role: Attorney
  • Experience: Bas de Blank is listed as an attorney for Hisense.

• Angela Colt

  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
  • Role: Attorney
  • Experience: Angela Colt is listed as an attorney for Hisense.

It's important to note that appearances by attorneys were filed in December 2024. The case is active, and a Docket Control Order was expected to issue around September 2025 with a trial date of January 11, 2027.