Untitled case

I'll research this case thoroughly before writing the overview.

Confirmed the case identity. Now let me dig into the parties, the patent, and the parallel PTAB/PTO proceedings.

Good background. Now let me pin down the LG case specifics — the stay, the accused products, and the parallel PTO proceedings on the '905 patent.

The docket shows a stay entered in February 2026. Let me pin down the stay basis and the status of the '905 patent at the PTAB/PTO.

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several searches.

I've identified the case: Proxense, LLC v. [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) et al, 6:24-cv-00302 (W.D. Tex.). Let me dig deeper into the docket and related proceedings.

Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. et al, No. 6:24-cv-00302 (W.D. Tex.) — Litigation History and Posture

0. Threshold correction to the prior case summary

The prior summary said the parties, filing date and outcome "could not be confirmed." They can now be resolved:

• Caption: Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division
• Filed: 2024-05-31 (Complaint, Dkt. 1)
• Judge: Alan D. Albright (case originally docketed to Judge Kathleen Cardone as WA-24-CV-302-KC; reassigned to Judge Albright on 2024-06-04)
• Case flags on the docket: PATENT and STAYED
• Sources: PACER Monitor docket; CourtListener docket 68819741; Justia docket; Reassignment Order PDF

Important scope point: the '905 patent is one of a portfolio of Proxense patents asserted in the same complaint — the pleading attaches U.S. Patents 8,352,730; 9,298,905; 10,698,989; 9,251,332; 10,469,456; 11,086,979; and 8,036,152 (Exhibits 1–7), and Proxense's infringement counts run across all of them (direct, induced and contributory theories). The '905 is therefore not the sole patent-in-suit; Google Patents' listing of the '905 simply captures one asserted patent. (Note: one secondary source reproducing the complaint text also refers to an "188 Patent"; I could not confirm whether 9,049,188 was asserted, so treat the patent count as at least seven.)

Accused products / technology: the LG Pay mobile-wallet application (pre-installed or downloadable on LG phones) and an "LG Accused Digital Key System" for automotive use. Venue was premised on LG's Texas sales and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) as to the foreign defendant.

Counsel (as docketed): for Proxense — David Hecht (Hecht Partners LLP; the firm also appears in the parallel PTAB/reexam papers on the '905). For LG — Melissa Richards Smith (the Marshall/Waco-based defense firm routinely appearing in W.D. Tex. patent matters). Firm affiliations should be verified against the live docket before citation.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Answer / counterclaims: I found no answer, Rule 12 motion, or counterclaim on the docket through the last available retrieval. What the docket shows instead is a long chain of agreed extensions of the answer deadline (see §2). If LG ever pleaded, it was after the latest docket data I could retrieve — so the "answer/counterclaim" phase should be treated as possibly still open / superseded by the stay.

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Motions to dismiss / transfer: none filed by LG that I could verify. The only transfer event is the sua sponte administrative reassignment to Judge Albright (Dkt. 5), not a §1404(a) motion.

Serial agreed extensions of the answer deadline (the defining procedural feature of this case):

The court also issued a deficiency notice against LG for filing an agreed-extension notice rather than a motion (Dkt. 12), because Albright's standing order requires extensions beyond 45 days from the original answer date to be sought by motion with a proposed order.

Motion to stay: the most recent entries available are:

• Dkt. 26 — "Stay Case" motion, docketed on/around 2026-02-13
• Dkt. 27 — "Order on Motion to Stay Case," on/around 2026-02-17

This is consistent with the docket's STAYED case flag. Caveat: I could not retrieve the text of the stay motion or order, so I cannot state on the record whether the stay is (a) a joint/agreed stay pending PTAB/reexamination, (b) a contested §314(a)/Fintiv-type stay pending IPR, or (c) a continuation or extension of an earlier stay. I also cannot rule out an earlier stay order that does not appear in the retrieved excerpts. This is the single most important gap to close via PACER.

Summary judgment: none identified.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

No Markman order, claim-construction opinion, or hearing in 6:24-cv-00302 was found. Given the case has been in extensions and is now stayed, it is unlikely the case ever reached Markman. By contrast, the related Proxense, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00143 (W.D. Tex., Albright) had a claim construction hearing noted for 2025-04-14, followed by an order staying that case pending the PTAB on 2025-05-27 — a useful benchmark for how this campaign is being sequenced.

---

4. Discovery milestones

None of strategic significance identified. With no answer on file and repeated extension of the answer deadline, the case does not appear to have entered Rule 26(f)/scheduling-order discovery. No discovery orders, protective orders, or motions to compel were located.

---

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or §285 fees motion was found. The case has not approached trial.

---

6. Parallel PTAB / PTO proceedings on the '905 patent and their effect

The '905 patent (Biometric Personal Data Key (PDK) Authentication, app. 14/521,982, issued 2016-03-29, inventor John Giobbi) has a substantial post-grant history:

1. IPR2021-01447 — [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) v. Proxense, LLC, petition filed 2021-08-26 challenging claims 1–12 of the '905. Grounds included §103 over Scott + Lapsley; Scott + Lapsley + Robinson; and Berardi + Shreve + Kinoshita. Institution denied on 2022-02-28 (no reasonable likelihood of prevailing as to any challenged claim). This matters because it later became the basis for Proxense's §325(d) argument that Samsung was a serial challenger.

2. Ex parte reexamination 90/015,053 (third-party requester: Samsung Electronics America, Inc.), request filed 2022-06-08 against claims 1–18 of the '905.

   • 2022-08-02 — CRU Order Granting Request, finding each ground raised a substantial new question of patentability, and expressly declining to exercise §325(d)(1) discretion.
   • 2022-08-05 — requester opposition; OPLA decision holding the opposition moot but preserving it in the record, and granting Proxense's 37 C.F.R. §1.183 petition to the extent it allowed §325(d) argument to be considered on the request decision.
   • The Office distinguished In re Vivint — noting Proxense's prior proceedings were not denied as "undesirable, incremental or abusive" petitioning, and that Samsung's IPR2021-01447 had been denied on the merits, not discretionarily.
   • Office action recorded as a Final Rejection (mailing date shown as 2024-03-04): claims 1, 3–10, 12–18 rejected under pre-AIA §103(a) over U.S. 7,188,110 (Ludtke) in view of U.S. 2003/0196084 (Okereke), with dependent claims 2 and 11 rejected over Ludtke + Okereke + Robinson and/or Ludtke + Scott(± Robinson). Patent Owner remarks were filed 2024-01-12.
   • This reexamination is the crux of the invalidity pressure on the '905: a final rejection of every claim (1–18) in a reexam, if sustained through appeal, would remove the '905 from the litigation entirely.

3. IPR2024-00233 and IPR2024-00234 — Google LLC v. Proxense, LLC, filed 2024 (petition in -00233 dated ~2024-05-20), asserted against the '905. The petitions attach the '905 reexamination Final Rejection and the Order Granting Request as exhibits and argue §325(d) should not bar institution because the reexam art/arguments differ. (Related Google docket for the '905.)

4. IPR2024-00776 and IPR2024-00846 — Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLC, filed 2024-04-26, asserted against the '905; both petitions likewise rely on the ex parte reexam record (Ex. 1022).

5. IPR2024-01333 — Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC, filed ~2024-08-22, also against the '905, attaching the reexam Final Rejection (Ex. 1024).

Effect on the litigation: Although the '905 IPRs were filed by non-parties (Samsung, Google, Microsoft, Apple) in their own parallel Proxense disputes, their pendency is the most plausible driver of the stays/extensions in this LG action. The parallel Proxense v. Apple case (6:24-cv-00143) was expressly stayed pending PTAB on 2025-05-27, which strongly suggests the LG case's stay posture is part of a coordinated, campaign-wide strategy of resolving patentability at the PTAB/PTO before litigating.

Caveat on docket numbers: these PTAB numbers and the '905 linkage are drawn from PTAB exhibit/docket aggregators (DocketAlarm, PTAB CTS/PTA CTS mirror pages) rather than from the Board's own institution decisions. Institution/termination outcomes for the 2024-filed IPRs (Google, Microsoft, Apple) were not confirmed and should be checked on the PTAB docket before being relied on.

---

7. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal — present posture

• No settlement, stipulated dismissal, consent judgment, final judgment, or Federal Circuit appeal was found.
• Present posture: STAYED. As of the last retrievable docket data (on or about September 2026), the case carries the STAYED flag, following a Motion to Stay Case (~2026-02-13, Dkt. 26) and an Order on that motion (~2026-02-17, Dkt. 27). All indications are that the stay is pending resolution of PTAB/PTO proceedings directed at the asserted patents, most importantly the '905 ex parte reexamination and the 2024-filed '905 IPRs.
• No merits adjudication has occurred on any patent, including the '905.

---

8. Chronological one-line timeline

• 2021-08-26 – Samsung files IPR2021-01447 on the '905.
• 2022-02-28 – Board denies institution of IPR2021-01447 (no RLP).
• 2022-06-08 – Samsung requests ex parte reexam 90/015,053 on '905 claims 1–18.
• 2022-08-02 – CRU grants the reexam; §325(d) not applied.
• 2024-01-12 – Patent Owner remarks in the reexam.
• 2024-03-04 – Final rejection of '905 claims 1, 3–10, 12–18 (and 2, 11) over Ludtke-based combinations.
• 2024-04-26 – Microsoft files IPR2024-00776 / -00846 on the '905.
• 2024-05-20 / 2024-08-22 – Google (IPR2024-00233/-00234) and Apple (IPR2024-01333) petitions touching the '905.
• 2024-05-31 – Proxense sues LG in W.D. Tex. (Dkt. 1).
• 2024-06-04 – Case reassigned to Judge Albright (Dkt. 5).
• 2024-07-15/16 – LG appearance + unopposed extension; foreign service waived; answer due 2024-10-17 (Dkt. 7–8).
• 2024-10 → 2026-01 – Rolling agreed extensions of the answer deadline (Dkt. 9–17, 24–25); no answer filed in the retrieved record.
• 2025-04-14 / 2025-05-27 – Related Proxense v. Apple (6:24-cv-00143) reaches Markman hearing and is stayed pending PTAB.
• 2026-02-13 / 2026-02-17 – Motion to stay (Dkt. 26) and order staying the case (Dkt. 27); docket thereafter flagged STAYED.

---

9. What remains unverified (and how to close it)

1. Dkt. 18–23 — unretrieved; likely further extensions, notices, or an earlier stay motion/order.
2. Text of Dkt. 26/27 — the legal basis and duration of the current stay (agreed vs. contested; tied to reexam and/or specific IPRs).
3. Whether LG ever answered or counterclaimed — no such filing appears in the retrieved dockets.
4. Institution/termination outcomes of IPR2024-00233/-00234, -00776, -00846, -01333 on the '905, and whether any Proxense patent has been invalidated.
5. Exact patent list in the complaint — seven patents are in the exhibit list; an "188 Patent" reference appears in one secondary reproduction and needs confirmation.
6. Whether any license/settlement covers LG (Proxense's campaign has historically resolved via early settlements, but I found no evidence of one here).

Primary sources to pull next: the PACER docket for 6:24-cv-00302 (Dkt. 1, 5, 7–17, 24–27); the PTAB Patent Trial & Appeal Tracking System for IPR2024-00233/-00234/-00776/-00846/-01333 and IPR2021-01447; and USPTO Patent Center for reexam control 90/015,053 (current status after the 2024-03-04 final rejection).

Method note: the case metadata (parties, number, court, patent) was provided as authoritative; the docket-level facts above are sourced to PACER Monitor, CourtListener, Justia's docket extract, the W.D. Tex. reassignment order, and PTAB exhibit/aggregator pages. Items marked "apparent" or "~" reflect date parsing across aggregator displays and should be confirmed on PACER before formal citation.

I'll research this case starting with the docket and party identification.

The case is Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. et al, 6:24-cv-00302 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Albright), filed May 31, 2024. Let me find the docket and counsel.

Plaintiff is Proxense, LLC. Let me pull the actual docket entries and attorney list for this specific case.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Proxense, LLC

Case identified: The "untitled" 6:24-cv-00302 is Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. et al, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright. Filed May 31, 2024. Plaintiff is Proxense, LLC; defendants are LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. The complaint asserts seven patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,298,905 (the '905 patent) — so the Google Patents listing that started this file is only a partial picture of the case. (Sources: Docket Alarm; Justia dockets; CourtListener.)

Confirmed on this docket

David L. Hecht — Lead counsel (plaintiff Proxense, LLC)

• Firm / office: Hecht Partners LLP, 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017 (dhecht@hechtpartners.com; (212) 851-6821).
• Docket basis: Hecht is the filing attorney on the complaint (Dkt. 1), the Request for Issuance of Summons, and the Notice of Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer — all filed on behalf of Proxense, per the PACER docket via PacerMonitor and Justia.
• Patent-litigation note: Registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 61,618); he signs as Lead Counsel for Proxense in its PTAB matters on the same patent family (e.g., the Patent Owner Notice of Appeal in IPR2024-00573 concerning the '905 patent, signed "/s/ David L. Hecht … (Lead Counsel)"). He is Proxense's principal litigation counsel across its enforcement campaign.

Very likely on the team, but NOT independently confirmed on this docket

Proxense uses a consistent core trial team across its W.D. Tex. campaign. In the closely related Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00143-ADA (same judge, filed weeks earlier), the plaintiff's team of record was:

• Brian D. Melton — Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston (1000 Louisiana St., Suite 5100) — listed as LEAD ATTORNEY on that docket sheet (bmelton@susmangodfrey.com). Melton is a well-known patent-trial lawyer (Susman Godfrey's IP practice).
• Lear Jiang — Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles (1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400) — "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED."
• David L. Hecht — Hecht Partners LLP, New York — "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED."

I could not verify from the sources retrieved that Melton or Jiang have entered appearances in 6:24-cv-00302 specifically. The full attorney-appearance list for this docket was not retrievable in my searches (the authoritative docket sheet would be the PACER "attorneys" tab or a Notice of Appearance under Dkt. 2+). Do not treat the Susman Godfrey entries above as established for this case without checking PACER.

Gaps / caveats you should flag downstream

• No local counsel confirmed. W.D. Tex. practice (and Judge Albright's requirements) typically requires Texas-admitted local counsel. I did not find a confirmed local-counsel appearance for Proxense in this case. The related-case docket I retrieved did not show one either. This is unresolved.
• No in-house counsel identified for Proxense.
• Case posture: the docket shows the matter was STAYED (case flag "STAYED"; a Motion to Stay and an "Order on Motion to Stay Case" appear around Feb. 2026, with a series of extensions of time to answer through 2025–26). This is consistent with the parallel PTAB proceedings — Google (IPR2024-00233/-00234), Microsoft (IPR2024-00776, -00846), and Samsung (IPR2021-01444/-01447) have all challenged the '905 patent and related Proxense patents, and Samsung's ex parte reexamination 90/015,053 is on the '905 patent. A stay would explain the lack of substantive defense activity in the district case.
• Nothing indicates sealed counsel appointments; the appearances simply weren't fully captured in the sources I reached.

Bottom line

The only attorney I can affirmatively place as counsel of record for the plaintiff in 6:24-cv-00302 is David L. Hecht of Hecht Partners LLP (New York), who filed the complaint and related papers for Proxense, LLC. The Susman Godfrey team (Melton, Jiang) that leads Proxense's parallel Apple case is the natural co-counsel, but their appearance in this docket is unconfirmed and should be verified against the PACER docket sheet before being reported as counsel of record.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Counsel of Record — Defendants LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.

Case identification (confirming/refining the earlier sections): Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00302 (W.D. Tex., Waco Division), filed May 31, 2024, reassigned from Judge Kathleen Cardone to Judge Alan D. Albright by transfer order signed June 4, 2024 (transfer order PDF; Dockets.Justia docket; Docket Alarm). Plaintiff is Proxense, LLC; the '905 patent is one of seven patents-in-suit (along with the '730, '989, '332, '456, '979, and '152 patents).

---

The one defense attorney confirmed on the docket

Docket trail for this attorney in 6:24-cv-00302:

• Dkt. 6 — Notice of Attorney Appearance (July 15, 2024), both LG defendants.
• Dkt. 7 — Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Answer / Move, including waiver of foreign service requirement for LG Electronics Inc.; granted by Dkt. 8 (July 16, 2024), answer due Oct. 17, 2024.
• Dkt. 10 (Dec. 9, 2024) and Dkt. 12 (Feb. 7, 2025) — Notices/agreed extensions, both signed by Smith; Dkt. 12 drew a deficiency notice (extensions beyond 45 days must be filed as motions), and later extensions were granted by text orders (answers reset to Mar. 16, 2025 → Apr. 15, 2025 → May 15, 2025 → June 14, 2025 → July 16, 2025).
• The docket entries the earlier sections identified — a motion to stay and an order on the motion to stay (Feb. 2026) — appear in the CourtListener docket listing for this case; the retrieved snippets show activity at Dkt. 25, 26, and 27 spanning Dec. 12, 2025 through Feb. 17, 2026 (CourtListener docket). I could not retrieve the stay papers themselves, so I cannot confirm who signed the stay motion or whether additional counsel signed it.

---

What the record does NOT show — stated explicitly

• No national/lead trial counsel appearance was retrieved. In a case of this size, LG almost certainly has a national IP firm acting as lead trial counsel alongside Gillam & Smith, but no such Notice of Attorney Appearance (or pro hac vice motion) surfaced in any source I could reach. I will not name a firm by inference. If a lead-counsel appearance exists, it is most likely in a docket entry after July 16, 2024 that is not reproduced in Dockets.Justia (last retrieved July 16, 2024) or in the truncated PACER Monitor/CourtListener listings.
• No in-house counsel of record identified. LG's in-house attorneys (LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. legal department) do not appear on the docket in the retrieved material.
• Possible sealed filings. Any motion to seal would not be reflected in the free sources I have; counsel lists appended to sealed exhibits would be invisible to this search.
• Foreign service waiver: Dkt. 8 confirms LG Electronics Inc. (the Korean entity) waived service of process, which is why both entities share the same answer deadlines — a common LG defense posture.
• Caveat on sources: the post-July-2024 docket chronology rests on aggregated third-party dockets (CourtListener, PACER Monitor, Docket Alarm), which the earlier sections already flagged as incomplete. Treat the specific Feb. 2026 stay date as reported-but-unverified pending a PACER pull.

---

Don't confuse these with defendant's counsel (related proceedings)

These attorneys appear in the '905-patent ecosystem but represent other parties, not LG in this case:

• David Hecht and Kinza Hecht (Hard IP LLC / Hecht Partners) — signed the Complaint and summons request for Proxense, LLC (plaintiff side) in this case (Dkt. 1, 3), and Hard IP LLC (10 Notch Hill Drive, Livingston, NJ) is Proxense's prosecution counsel of record in ex parte reexamination 90/015,053.
• Marissa R. Ducca (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, 1300 I St. NW, Suite 900, Washington, D.C.) — listed "For Third Party Requester" in the '905 ex parte reexamination; the requester there is Samsung Electronics America, Inc., not LG.
• Proxense's parallel PTAB challenges on the '905 patent were brought by Samsung (IPR2021-01447), Google (IPR2024-00233/00234), and Microsoft (IPR2024-00776/00846) — I found no LG-filed IPR against the '905 patent in the retrieved results, though an LG petition in the 2025 IPR series could exist and would be worth a separate PTAB docket check.

Bottom line: the only defense attorney verifiably on the record in 6:24-cv-00302 is Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, TX), appearing for both LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. LG's likely lead trial counsel has not been identified from the sources available, and I recommend a direct PACER docket-sheet pull (entries after July 2024) to confirm any additional appearances or pro hac vice admissions before relying on a complete counsel list.