Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, General Video, LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., case number 1:24-cv-01530, is currently active in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, General Video, LLC (GV), is a patent holding entity or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) whose primary commercial interest lies in the licensing and enforcement of its patent portfolio rather than manufacturing products. General Video, formed in Delaware in July 2019, acquires patents from various sources, including those originally assigned to Matsushita Electric Industrial, Silicon Image, and Koninklijke Philips, and is associated with IdeaHub, Inc., a Korean monetization operation. The defendants are Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc., major operating companies in the computer and technology sector.

The core of the dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 9,843,786, among others, which is generally directed to "DISPLAY DATA TRANSMISSION." Specifically, the patent describes a display data transmission system where display data is transmitted as packets, each containing a payload for the main stream data block and a header with packet information, including a content type field indicating the data block's content. [search: "US Patent 9843786 full text"] The accused products are Dell's various offerings, including laptops, desktops, monitors, and graphics cards, which allegedly infringe by complying with and implementing DisplayPort (DP) or embedded DisplayPort (eDP) standards promulgated by the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA). These patents are asserted as Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) for DisplayPort and eDP, and are licensed through the Via Licensing Corporation d/b/a Via Licensing Alliance.

Filed on December 13, 2024, the case is being overseen by Judge Alan D. Albright in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas, having been reassigned from Judge Robert Pitman on March 27, 2025. The Western District of Texas under Judge Albright is a notable venue for patent litigation due to its reputation for moving cases efficiently. Fact discovery is scheduled to conclude by August 4, 2026, with a trial set for March 29, 2027. [cite: 5, 9 (from previous search), 11 (from previous search)] This case is part of a broader "DisplayPort Litigation" campaign by General Video, which has filed similar infringement suits against other major technology companies, including HP, Acer, ASUS, and Lenovo, in both the Western and Eastern Districts of Texas. This multi-defendant assertion of a patent portfolio claimed to be essential to industry standards, coupled with parallel inter partes review (IPR) challenges filed by Intel and Dell against some of General Video's patents at the PTAB, makes this an active and complex litigation to monitor within the display technology industry. [cite: 7 (from previous search), 8 (from previous search), 9 (from previous search), 10 (from previous search)]

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for General Video, LLC v. Dell Inc. et al. (1:24-cv-01530)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, involves U.S. Patent No. 9,843,786, among others. The case remains active with a trial scheduled for 2027.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Case Filing (2024-12-13): General Video, LLC filed the lawsuit against Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. in the Western District of Texas.
• Asserted Patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,843,786 (referred to as the "786 Patent") is among the patents asserted by General Video, LLC.
• Partial Motion to Dismiss (Pending): The defendants, Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc., have filed a partial motion to dismiss certain claims, which is currently pending before the court.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Case Reassignment (2025-03-27): The case was reassigned from District Judge Robert Pitman to District Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings.

Claim Construction (Markman):

• Claim Term Exchange (2025-07-11): An Agreed Scheduling Order, issued on March 24, 2025, stipulated that the parties were to concurrently exchange a list of claim terms they believe should be construed by the court, along with identifying any claim elements contended to be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, on or before July 11, 2025. The parties have since exchanged proposed claim constructions and extrinsic evidence.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Fact Discovery Commencement (2025-03-18): Fact discovery in the case commenced on March 18, 2025.
• Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (2025-05-19): Dell was ordered to serve preliminary invalidity contentions by May 19, 2025, including a chart mapping prior art, identification of indefinite or lacking written description limitations, and any claims contended to be ineligible under § 101.
• Discovery Actions: Dell has issued subpoenas to Intel Corp. and Via Licensing Alliance and served interrogatories on General Video, which the plaintiff has responded to. Collectively, in this and related Texas cases, the parties have produced over 200,000 pages of documents.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• Trial Scheduled (2027-03-29): A jury trial for the Dell Case is currently scheduled for March 29, 2027, according to a scheduling order entered on March 24, 2025.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Settlement Offers: The plaintiff was required to submit a written offer of settlement by February 25, 2025, with the defendants responding by April 8, 2025. These offers are private.
• Current Posture: The case is active and proceeding through the litigation phases toward the scheduled trial.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• There is no direct evidence from publicly available USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,843,786. While an Agreed Scheduling Order in the district court case references "Ex.1020 / IPR2025-01038", this IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01038) concerns a different patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,359,437, also owned by General Video, LLC.

Counsel representing the plaintiff, General Video, LLC, in case 1:24-cv-01530 in the Western District of Texas include attorneys from McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. and Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP.

Here is the identified counsel:

• Matthew George McAndrews

  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiff. He represents General Video, LLC in this case and other related patent infringement cases.
  • Firm: McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. is a Chicago-based firm specializing in intellectual property law. (Further external search confirms Chicago, IL).
  • Experience Note: Matthew G. McAndrews is actively involved in representing General Video, LLC as a Patent Owner in multiple district court cases asserting various patents, including the one at issue.

• Peter J. McAndrews

  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. is a Chicago-based firm specializing in intellectual property law. (Further external search confirms Chicago, IL).
  • Experience Note: Peter J. McAndrews is listed as counsel for General Video, LLC in this patent infringement case.

• Geoff Culbertson

  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP is a Texas-based firm. (Further external search confirms Longview, TX and Texarkana, TX).
  • Experience Note: Geoff Culbertson is listed as counsel for General Video, LLC in this patent infringement case.

• Kelly B. Tidwell

  • Role: Counsel for Plaintiff.
  • Firm: Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP is a Texas-based firm. (Further external search confirms Longview, TX and Texarkana, TX).
  • Experience Note: Kelly B. Tidwell is listed as counsel for General Video, LLC in this patent infringement case.

Based on the nature of the firms, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. likely serves as lead intellectual property counsel, while Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP may serve as local counsel due to their Texas presence, though specific roles are not explicitly designated as "lead" or "local" in the provided docket entries.

In the case 1:24-cv-01530, General Video, LLC v. Dell Inc. et al., the defendants are Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.. Counsel representing the defendants include attorneys from Baker Botts LLP, Dacus Firm, and Desmarais LLP.

Here is the identified counsel for the defendants:

• Roger Fulghum

  • Role: Counsel for Defendant.
  • Firm: Baker Botts LLP.
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, Baker Botts LLP has multiple offices including in Texas.
  • Experience Note: Roger Fulghum is listed as counsel for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. in this patent infringement case.

• Mark A. Speegle

  • Role: Counsel for Defendant.
  • Firm: Baker Botts LLP.
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, Baker Botts LLP has multiple offices including in Texas.
  • Experience Note: Mark A. Speegle is listed as counsel for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.

• Deron R. Dacus

  • Role: Local Counsel for Defendant.
  • Firm: Dacus Firm.
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, the "Dacus FirmLocal" suggests a local presence for the Texas Western District Court.
  • Experience Note: Deron R. Dacus is listed as local counsel for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.

• Paul A. Bondor

  • Role: Counsel for Defendant.
  • Firm: Desmarais LLP.
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets, Desmarais LLP is known to be a New York-based firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.
  • Experience Note: Paul A. Bondor is listed as counsel for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.

• Jeffrey S. Seddon, II

  • Role: Counsel for Defendant.
  • Firm: Desmarais LLP.
  • Office Location: Desmarais LLP is known to be a New York-based firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.
  • Experience Note: Jeffrey S. Seddon, II is listed as counsel for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.

• Jennifer Przybylski

  • Role: Counsel for Defendant.
  • Firm: Desmarais LLP.
  • Office Location: Desmarais LLP is known to be a New York-based firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.
  • Experience Note: Jennifer Przybylski is listed as counsel for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.

• Sumeet Dang

  • Role: Counsel for Defendant.
  • Firm: Desmarais LLP.
  • Office Location: Desmarais LLP is known to be a New York-based firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.
  • Experience Note: Sumeet Dang is listed as counsel for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. and filed a motion to stay the case pending ex parte reexaminations on March 12, 2026.

• Benjamin Rodd

  • Role: Counsel for Defendant.
  • Firm: Desmarais LLP.
  • Office Location: Desmarais LLP is known to be a New York-based firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.
  • Experience Note: Benjamin Rodd is listed as counsel for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.

• Ryan G. Thorne

  • Role: Counsel for Defendant.
  • Firm: Desmarais LLP.
  • Office Location: Desmarais LLP is known to be a New York-based firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.
  • Experience Note: Ryan G. Thorne is listed as counsel for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.