Untitled case

Case Overview: Longitude Licensing v. BOE Technology Group et al.

This patent infringement litigation, case number 2:25-cv-00358, is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The plaintiffs are Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, both entities associated with IPValue Management Inc., which is an intellectual property management firm that acquires and licenses patent portfolios, making them non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities (PAEs). The defendants are BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd., and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. BOE Technology Group is a major Chinese electronic components producer, and one of the world's largest manufacturers of LCDs, OLEDs, and flexible displays. Hisense Group is a Chinese multinational major appliance and electronics manufacturer primarily known for its television sets and home appliances.

The core of the dispute revolves around alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,020, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 7,636,146 and 8,319,512. These patents are collectively referred to as the "Longitude Patents" and generally relate to inventions that improve the consumer-facing benefits of LCD panels and/or modules, and monitors and TVs incorporating these display technologies, specifically in areas like image quality, brightness, manufacturing yields, and costs. More specifically, U.S. Patent No. 8,391,020 generally describes a thin film transistor liquid crystal display device and method for manufacturing it, focusing on improvements in the display panel structure and manufacturing efficiency. The accused products primarily include LCD panels and modules manufactured by BOE Technology, and televisions and other devices incorporating these panels from Hisense.

The case is proceeding before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referring Judge Roy S. Payne. It has been consolidated for pretrial issues with a lead case, 2:25-cv-00440, also filed by Longitude Licensing. The Eastern District of Texas is a notable venue for patent litigation due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly juries, expedient trial schedules, and judges with extensive experience in patent cases. The litigation is further complicated by parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), specifically IPR2025-01412, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,020. The plaintiffs previously secured a $67 million jury verdict in January 2026 against BOE Technology Group in the Eastern District of Texas for willful infringement of other LCD-related patents, demonstrating a history of successful patent assertion in this venue and technology area.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Longitude Licensing Limited et al v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al

This patent infringement litigation, case number 2:25-cv-00358, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and involves U.S. Patent 8,391,020. The case is currently active.

Chronological Developments:

• 2025-04-08: Complaint Filed. Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited (as Plaintiffs) filed a patent infringement complaint against BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd., and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. (as Defendants) in the Eastern District of Texas. The cause of action is 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement, and both parties have demanded a jury trial.
• 2025-08-14: Case Consolidated. The case (2:25-cv-00358) was ordered to be consolidated for all pretrial issues with a lead case, Longitude Licensing Limited et al v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 2:25-cv-00440. All future filings for pretrial matters are to be made in the lead case, while individual cases remain active for trial. The order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on August 13, 2025.
• 2025-09-11: Scheduling Conference Reset. A joint motion to continue the scheduling conference was granted because Defendants Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd. and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. had not yet been served via the Hague Convention. The scheduling conference for the consolidated action was reset to November 24, 2025.
• 2025-09-16 & 2025-10-14: Answers and Defenses Filed. Defendant BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed an Amended Answer and Defenses to the Plaintiffs' Complaint for Patent Infringement. One was filed in the member case (2:25-cv-00358) on September 16, 2025, and another in the lead case (2:25-cv-00440) on October 14, 2025. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. is also listed as a Counter-Claimant, with IPValue Management, Inc., 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, and Longitude Licensing Limited identified as Counter-Defendants.
• 2025-11-24: Scheduling Conference Held (Reset Date). The scheduling conference for the consolidated action took place, setting various deadlines.
• 2025-11-24: Parallel PTAB IPR Filed (IPR2025-01412). BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-01412) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,020, which is at issue in the district court litigation.
• 2025-12-05: Docket Control Order Issued. A Docket Control Order was issued for the lead case (2:25-cv-00440), outlining the schedule for the litigation.
  • Invalidity Contentions: Due January 5, 2026.
  • Markman Briefing / Indefiniteness: Parties are directed to include any arguments related to indefiniteness in their Markman briefing, rather than filing early motions for summary judgment on this issue.
  • Claim Construction Hearing (Markman): Scheduled for September 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas, before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
  • Trial Date: Jury selection is scheduled for March 15, 2027, in Marshall, Texas. An anticipated trial date in April 2027 was noted earlier in IPR filings.
• PTAB IPR Outlook (IPR2025-01412): The Patent Owner, 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, requested the Director to exercise discretion and deny institution of IPR2025-01412, citing the advanced posture of the parallel district court proceeding. The Patent Owner argued that the district court is unlikely to grant a stay pending IPR, and if the Board institutes review, its final written decision (anticipated in March 2027) would be issued only a few months before the expected district court trial in April 2027.

The case is ongoing, with key dates for claim construction and trial set for 2026 and 2027, respectively. The outcome of the IPR petition (IPR2025-01412) on patent 8,391,020 is pending, and its institution decision will significantly influence the trajectory of the district court litigation.

The plaintiff(s) in the patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00358, Longitude Licensing Limited et al v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al, filed in the Texas Eastern District Court and involving U.S. Patent 8,391,020, are represented by counsel from Miller Fair Henry PLLC and Robins Kaplan LLP. Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited are the plaintiffs (Patent Owner and exclusive licensee, respectively) in this action.

The following attorneys are identified as counsel of record for the plaintiff(s):

• Garrett C. Parish

  • Role: Likely local counsel or co-counsel.
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Parish is a patent litigator with experience in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Andrea Leigh Fair

  • Role: Likely local counsel or co-counsel.
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Fair focuses her practice on intellectual property litigation.

• Aaron R. Fahrenkrog

  • Role: Likely lead counsel or co-counsel.
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Fahrenkrog is a patent litigator with experience representing patent owners in various technology areas.

• Emily Tremblay

  • Role: Likely co-counsel.
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP.
  • Experience Note: Ms. Tremblay is involved in intellectual property litigation.

• William Jones

  • Role: Likely co-counsel.
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Jones practices in the firm's intellectual property and technology litigation groups.

• Navin Ramalingam

  • Role: Likely co-counsel.
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Ramalingam's practice includes patent litigation.

• Samuel J. LaRoque

  • Role: Likely co-counsel.
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP.
  • Experience Note: Mr. LaRoque is an attorney focusing on intellectual property disputes.

In the patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00358, which has been consolidated with lead case 2:25-cv-00440 in the Eastern District of Texas, the defendants are BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd., and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd..

Based on available docket information, the following counsel has appeared for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.:

• Melissa Smith (Attorney for BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas
  • Notable Experience: Melissa Smith is a founding partner of Gillam & Smith LLP and has extensive experience in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. She is known for representing both plaintiffs and defendants in complex intellectual property disputes.

Further details regarding the specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) for all attorneys representing each defendant, along with their firm office locations and detailed patent litigation experience, would typically be found in more comprehensive docket entries such as notices of appearance. Without direct PACER access to the full, updated docket for the consolidated case 2:25-cv-00440, a complete list for all defendants and their precise roles cannot be definitively provided at this time. Filings for this case were last retrieved from Justia on August 14, 2025.