Untitled case

This is an active patent infringement lawsuit, Light Guide Innovations LLC v. Walmart Inc., filed in the Eastern District of Texas under case number 2:25-cv-00312 on March 21, 2025. The plaintiff, Light Guide Innovations LLC, is a non-practicing entity (NPE) and an entity of Anjay Venture Partners LLC, known for acquiring patent portfolios for licensing and litigation purposes. The defendants in this case are retail giant Walmart Inc., along with Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. de C.V. and Hisense Company Ltd.. Light Guide Innovations LLC alleges that the defendants are infringing patents related to light guide and LED display technologies through their sale of various display products, including LED, Crystal UHD, QLED, and Neo QLED televisions.

The patent at issue, US Patent 8408778, generally describes a light-emitting apparatus. While specific docket entries for this exact case often refer to a broader portfolio of patents asserted by Light Guide Innovations LLC related to backlight units and LED strips in LCD TVs (e.g., US8267537B2, US9638378B2, among others), the nature of the asserted technology aligns with the patent's focus. The case is assigned to District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, particularly for NPEs, known for its busy patent docket and experienced judges, making it a strategic choice for plaintiffs.

This litigation is notable as part of a broader assertion campaign by Light Guide Innovations LLC, which has acquired patents originating from companies like LG Innotek (via Lekin Semiconductor) and is actively pursuing infringement claims against multiple major consumer electronics manufacturers and retailers, including Samsung and TCL in related actions. The plaintiff's strategy of targeting high-revenue display product lines underscores a trend of NPEs seeking early licensing revenue or litigation outcomes in competitive technology sectors. The ongoing nature of the case in a patent-favorable venue suggests a significant legal battle over foundational display technologies.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Light Guide Innovations LLC v. Walmart Inc. (2:25-cv-00312)

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involves U.S. Patent No. 8,408,778. The case is currently active and proceeding through pre-trial stages, with key future dates set for claim construction and trial.

Chronological Developments:

• 2025-03-21: Complaint Filed
  Light Guide Innovations LLC ("Plaintiff") filed its initial complaint for patent infringement against Walmart Inc. ("Defendant") in the Eastern District of Texas.
• 2025-07-18: Scheduling Conference & Consolidation Order
  A scheduling conference was held before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. Shortly thereafter, on July 21, 2025, the Court issued a Consolidation Order. This order consolidated several related cases for all pretrial issues (except venue) into the lead case, 2:25-CV-00312-RWS-RSP. All parties in member cases were directed to file future filings in this lead case.
• 2025-07-24: First Amended Complaint Filed
  Plaintiff Light Guide Innovations LLC filed a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, expanding the list of defendants to include Walmart Inc., Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. de C.V., Hisense Company 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., Hisense International (HK) Co. Ltd., TCT Mobile International Limited, TCL Electronics Holdings Limited, TCL Technology Group Corporation, TCL Communication Limited, and TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited.
• 2025-07-27: Walmart's Motion to Dismiss Filed
  Defendant Walmart Inc. filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim.
• 2025-08-01: Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
  Light Guide Innovations LLC filed a response in opposition to Walmart's motion to dismiss.
• 2025-08-03: Initial Docket Control Order Issued
  Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne signed an order establishing the initial docket control schedule. This order included a Markman Hearing set for August 14, 2026, a Pretrial Conference for January 12, 2027, and Jury Selection for February 16, 2027.
• 2025-08-01: Discovery Orders Filed
  Joint motions for entry of agreed protective, discovery, and e-discovery orders were filed by Light Guide Innovations LLC, indicating the commencement of the discovery phase.
• 2025-09-16: Extension of Time to Answer Granted for Hisense Entities
  Hisense Company Ltd. and other Hisense entities filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to file their answer, which was granted, setting the answer due date to December 15, 2025.
• 2026-03-20: Markman Hearing Notice Correction
  A notice was issued clarifying that a Markman/Claim Construction Hearing previously reset for April 22, 2026, in a member case was entered in error and canceled. Parties were directed to refer to the dates outlined in the Docket Control Order in the lead case (2:25-CV-00312), which currently sets the Markman hearing for August 14, 2026.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Dismiss: Walmart Inc. filed a partial motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff has responded in opposition. The docket information available does not yet indicate a ruling on this motion.
• Claim Construction (Markman): A Markman hearing is currently scheduled for August 14, 2026, before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

Discovery Milestones:

• Joint motions for agreed protective, discovery, and e-discovery orders were filed in August 2025, signaling the initiation of discovery activities in the case.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) for U.S. Patent 8,408,778 does not reveal any completed or currently active inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings.

Current Posture:

The case remains in active litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties are proceeding through discovery, with a claim construction hearing scheduled for August 2026 and a jury trial set for February 2027. There has been no final judgment, dismissal, or settlement reported.

In the patent infringement case Light Guide Innovations LLC v. Walmart Inc., filed in the Eastern District of Texas under case number 2:25-cv-00312, the following attorneys have appeared for the plaintiff:

• Justin Kurt Truelove

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results for his role in this case, but typically associated with patent litigation firms.
  • Note: Mr. Truelove filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Light Guide Innovations LLC on July 14, 2025.

• Vincent Rubino

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (indicated by filing a document on behalf of Light Guide Innovations LLC)
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results for his role in this case.
  • Note: Mr. Rubino is noted as the attorney for a "JOINT MOTION for Entry of Agreed E-Discovery Order" filed by Light Guide Innovations LLC on September 2, 2025, although the filing itself was marked as "FILED IN ERROR".

Further details regarding their specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel), their firms, office locations, and detailed patent litigation experience require a direct PACER search or more specific attorney profile lookups, which were not fully yielded by the initial broad search results.In the patent infringement case Light Guide Innovations LLC v. Walmart Inc., case number 2:25-cv-00312 in the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys represent the plaintiff, Light Guide Innovations LLC:

• Vincent J. Rubino, III

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (likely lead counsel, given his firm's specialization).
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP (New York office).
  • Experience Note: Mr. Rubino is a founding partner at Fabricant Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP, an IP litigation boutique. He has represented clients as lead counsel in numerous patent disputes across various technologies including smartphones, consumer electronics, wireless, semiconductor, and medical devices. He has litigated over 1,000 cases in popular patent venues like the Eastern District of Texas, California, Florida, Delaware, and New Jersey, as well as the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He holds a B.S. and M.S. in biomedical engineering and an M.S. in electrical engineering from Columbia University, providing extensive technical expertise. He has been recognized as a "Rising Star" by Super Lawyers from 2014-2022 and included in IAM Strategy 300's 2024 and 2025 editions as a top IP strategist.

• Justin Kurt Truelove

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (likely local counsel, given his location and typical practice in EDTX patent cases).
  • Firm: Truelove Law Firm (Marshall, TX).
  • Experience Note: Mr. Truelove has filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Light Guide Innovations LLC in this case. While some general attorney profiles list "Litigation: Personal Injury" as his practice area, his consistent appearance in Eastern District of Texas patent cases suggests a role as local counsel, which is common in this venue for out-of-state lead counsel. His bar number is 24013653, and he was admitted to practice in Texas in 1999.

Other attorneys from Fabricant LLP, such as Alfred Ross Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, and Jacob Daniel Ostling, are also listed in relation to Light Guide Innovations LLC in related dockets, suggesting a team approach from Fabricant LLP.

Defense Counsel Identified in Light Guide Innovations LLC v. Walmart Inc.

In the active patent infringement lawsuit, Light Guide Innovations LLC v. Walmart Inc. (2:25-cv-00312) in the Eastern District of Texas, a roster of attorneys from prominent law firms represents the various defendants.

Counsel for Hisense Entities

Several attorneys from Greenberg Traurig, LLP, represent the Hisense defendants, which include Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. de C.V., Hisense Company 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., and Hisense International (HK) Co. Ltd..

• Kathryn E. Albanese
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY (and others)
  • Relevant Experience: A registered patent attorney, Ms. Albanese focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyright. Her complex patent litigation experience spans medical devices, ANDA/Hatch Waxman matters, electronics, and software-based technologies. She also handles patent prosecution, post-grant review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and matters before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Notably, she clerked for Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas from 2022-2023.
• Wen Xue
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Office Location: Likely in a US office, specific office not definitively identified in search results but often involved in East Texas cases.
  • Relevant Experience: Associated with the Hisense defense, further details on specific patent litigation experience were not immediately available in the provided snippets.
• Scott J. Bornstein
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY (and others)
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Bornstein is a prominent intellectual property litigator with extensive experience in patent, trademark, and copyright matters. His involvement suggests a lead role or significant contribution to the Hisense defense.
• Joshua L. Raskin
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY (and others)
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Raskin is an intellectual property litigator, often involved in patent disputes. He has been mentioned in relation to patent litigation matters, including cases transferred from the Western District of Texas.
• Nicholas A. Brown
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA (and others)
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Brown is an intellectual property attorney, with his appearance indicating involvement in the Hisense defense.
• Emma Cohen
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
  • Office Location: Not specified but likely associated with the broader Greenberg Traurig presence.
  • Relevant Experience: Ms. Cohen is listed as counsel for Hisense, contributing to the defense team.

Counsel for Walmart Inc.

Walmart Inc. is represented by attorneys from Vinson & Elkins LLP and Findlay Craft, P.C.

• Hilary L. Preston
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Vinson & Elkins LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified but Vinson & Elkins has offices in Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Ms. Preston has filed notices on behalf of Walmart Inc., indicating her active role in the litigation, particularly concerning discovery disclosures. She is listed as counsel with Vinson & Elkins.
• Eric Hugh Findlay
  • Role: Local Counsel / Counsel
  • Firm: Findlay Craft, P.C.
  • Office Location: Tyler, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Findlay is a well-known attorney in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently acting as local counsel or lead counsel in patent infringement cases in the jurisdiction. His appearance notice confirms his representation of Walmart.

Counsel for TCL Entities

The search results did not explicitly identify specific counsel of record for the TCL entities (TCT Mobile International Limited, TCL Electronics Holdings Limited, TCL Technology Group Corporation, TCL Communication Limited, and TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited) in this particular case (2:25-cv-00312). While TCL has faced similar lawsuits from Light Guide Innovations in the Eastern District of Texas (e.g., 2:24-cv-00646), direct appearances for the TCL defendants in case 2:25-cv-00312 were not found in the provided docket snippets. Further direct docket review would be needed to confirm their specific counsel in this case.