Untitled case

In the patent infringement litigation case 2:22-cv-00494, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, the plaintiff is Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. and the defendants are [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) and LG Electronics USA, Inc.. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), given its role as a plaintiff asserting patents against a major operating company like LG Electronics, which manufactures a wide range of consumer electronics. The accused products are LG's Smart TVs, and potentially other related devices, with the allegations centering on infringement related to how these products utilize patented technology, specifically concerning video codecs.

The case asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,055,254, among others including U.S. Patent Nos. 9,055,255, 9,247,174, 9,510,040, and 10,419,805. Patent 9,055,254 is titled "Adaptive encoding of video for display on an electronic device" and generally describes methods and systems for efficiently encoding video content, likely to optimize its display on various electronic devices. The procedural posture of the case indicates it is being heard by Judge Rodney Gilstrap (JRG) and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (RSP). The Eastern District of Texas is a historically significant venue for patent litigation, often favored by plaintiffs due to its reputation for a "rocket docket" (expedited schedules), plaintiff-friendly local rules, and juries that have been considered sympathetic to patent holders. While the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017 aimed to limit venue shopping by restricting where patent cases could be filed, the Eastern District of Texas continues to be a prominent forum, with judges finding ways to retain cases under the "regular and established place of business" prong of the patent venue statute.

The case is notable for several reasons, including the ongoing trend of NPEs asserting patent portfolios against major technology companies. Furthermore, the litigation is linked to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where LG has filed petitions challenging the validity of some of the asserted patents, including IPR2024-00351, IPR2024-00352, IPR2024-00353, and IPR2024-00354. This dual-track approach of parallel district court litigation and PTAB challenges is a common strategy in modern patent disputes, influencing the overall trajectory and potential outcomes of the case. The case has experienced several trial date delays, a common occurrence even in the Eastern District of Texas.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al. (2:22-cv-00494)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, involves Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. (Plaintiff) and LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. (Defendants). The case primarily concerned smart TV technology, with U.S. Patent No. 9,055,254 being one of several asserted patents from the same family, including U.S. Patent Nos. 9,247,174, 9,510,040, 10,419,805, and 9,055,255. The litigation culminated in a jury verdict finding the asserted patents invalid, a decision upheld post-trial, and is currently on appeal.

Chronological Legal Developments:

• 2022-12-23: Complaint Filed. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. initiated the patent infringement lawsuit against LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

• 2023-06-14: Initial Docket Control Order. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued a Docket Control Order, setting various deadlines including an amended pleadings deadline of February 28, 2024, and a Markman Hearing for May 7, 2024.

• 2024-03-01: Motion to Dismiss Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued a Report and Recommendation regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. The motion was recommended to be granted-in-part and denied-in-part, addressing issues of direct, indirect, and willful infringement.

• 2024-04-19: Notice of Parallel IPR Proceedings. LG Electronics notified the court about its filing of inter partes review (IPR) petitions against several of the asserted patents, including IPR2024-00353 challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,055,254. LG also filed "Sotera stipulations," agreeing not to pursue grounds in the district court that it could have raised before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• 2024-05-07: Markman Hearing. A Markman (claim construction) hearing was held before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. Multimedia Technologies later filed belated motions to change its infringement claims and contentions after this hearing.

• 2025-02-03: Summary Judgment Granted in Part (Section 101). The court granted LG's motion for summary judgment of ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 concerning the asserted claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 9,237,291 and 9,185,325. However, the motion was denied for the other eight asserted patents, including 9,055,254.

• Prior to 2025-05-23: PTAB Decisions on Invalidity. In the week leading up to the district court trial, the PTAB found one claim of U.S. Patent No. 9,055,254 invalid. The PTAB also found various claims in U.S. Patent Nos. 10,419,805 and 9,510,040 invalid around the same time, though it upheld all challenged claims in U.S. Patent No. 9,247,174 in April 2025.

• 2025-05-19: Jury Trial and Verdict. After several trial reschedulings, a multi-day jury trial commenced, leading to a verdict on May 23, 2025. The jury found that Multimedia Technologies failed to prove LG infringed the asserted claims and, further, that LG successfully demonstrated the asserted patents were invalid. The case was terminated on June 11, 2025.

• 2026-03-18: Denial of Post-Trial Motions. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Multimedia Technologies' Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) or, in the alternative, a New Trial. The court declined to disturb the jury's findings of invalidity.

• 2026-04-16: Notice of Appeal. Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal was docketed as USCA Case Number 26-1705.

Outcome:

The district court litigation concluded with a jury verdict finding the asserted patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,055,254, invalid. This verdict was upheld by the district court through the denial of Multimedia Technologies' post-trial motions for JMOL or a new trial. The case is currently active at the Federal Circuit on appeal. Parallel PTAB proceedings contributed to the invalidation of at least one claim of U.S. Patent No. 9,055,254 and other related patents.

Based on the court docket for case 2:22-cv-00494, the plaintiff, Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd., is represented by attorneys from Capshaw DeRieux LLP and potentially Kasowitz Benson Torres, based on attorney affiliations and "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" statuses. Several attorneys from Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP were previously involved but their appearances have been terminated prior to the current date.

Here is the identified counsel of record for the plaintiff:

Daniel Apgar

• Role: Attorney to be noticed
• Firm: While the docket entry lists Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, his email address suggests an affiliation with Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.
• Office Location: New York, NY (Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP address in docket)
• Experience Note: Further research would be needed to definitively confirm his current firm and specific patent litigation experience.

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

• Role: Attorney to be noticed (Local Counsel)
• Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP
• Office Location: Gladewater, TX
• Experience Note: Capshaw DeRieux LLP is a Texas-based firm often acting as local counsel in Eastern District of Texas patent cases.

Note: The provided docket information indicates that Amanda Sewanan, Benjamin Lewson, Christopher Gerson, and Erika Simonson of Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP had their pro hac vice statuses terminated as of August 4, 2025, or June 25, 2025, which is prior to today's date, June 2, 2026. Therefore, they are not considered current counsel of record in this analysis.

The defendants, LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics USA, Inc., are represented by a team of attorneys from Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

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

Susan Stradley

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
• Office Location: Washington, D.C. (Common office for patent litigation at Morgan Lewis)
• Experience Note: Susan Stradley is a partner at Morgan Lewis and co-leads the firm’s intellectual property practice, focusing on patent litigation, post-grant proceedings, and intellectual property counseling for technology companies.

Jason C. White

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
• Office Location: Houston, TX (Common office for Texas-based patent litigation for Morgan Lewis)
• Experience Note: Jason White is a partner at Morgan Lewis with experience in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, representing technology and electronics companies.

Nicholas A. Restauri

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
• Office Location: Philadelphia, PA (Morgan Lewis office)
• Experience Note: Nicholas Restauri is a patent litigator at Morgan Lewis, involved in various intellectual property disputes.

Collin W. Park

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
• Office Location: San Francisco, CA (Morgan Lewis office)
• Experience Note: Collin Park is an attorney at Morgan Lewis who frequently appears in patent infringement cases for technology clients.

Natalie A. Bennett

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
• Office Location: Philadelphia, PA (Morgan Lewis office)
• Experience Note: Natalie Bennett is an associate at Morgan Lewis focusing on intellectual property litigation.

Jason E. Gettleman

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
• Office Location: Washington, D.C. (Morgan Lewis office)
• Experience Note: Jason Gettleman is a partner at Morgan Lewis with experience in patent and technology litigation, representing defendants in complex infringement cases.

Austin L. Zuck

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
• Office Location: Philadelphia, PA (Morgan Lewis office)
• Experience Note: Austin Zuck is an attorney at Morgan Lewis involved in patent litigation, including the defense of LG Electronics.

Brooke Quesinberry

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
• Office Location: Washington, D.C. (Morgan Lewis office)
• Experience Note: Brooke Quesinberry is an associate at Morgan Lewis, focusing on intellectual property and patent litigation.