Defendant

Guiyang Hisense Electronics Co., Ltd.

5 cases as defendant.

Cases
5
Active
2
3 closed
Filed
2022
Top venue
E.D. Texas Marshall
1 case

Company profile

Company overview. Guiyang Hisense Electronics Co., Ltd. (贵阳海信电子有限公司, "Guiyang Hisense") is a private Chinese joint venture founded on January 23, 1997, headquartered in the Guiyang Economic and Technological Development Zone, Guizhou Province. It is 51%-owned by Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. — the listed TV arm of Hisense Group (SSE: 600060) — and 49% by Guiyang Industrial Investment Co., Ltd., a municipal state-owned entity. It is one of Hisense's six global TV production bases and the largest self-branded TV factory in western China, with roughly 350–480 employees and 2024 revenue of about RMB 6 billion (~US$830 million), on output value above RMB 9.5 billion.

Products / operations. Guiyang Hisense is a manufacturing company, not a licensing entity. It produces Hisense-brand LCD/LED smart TVs (roughly 32″ to 75″ and larger), plus remote controls, audio equipment, and satellite-TV receiving gear, with export sales to Japan, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere. It produced about 3.32 million TVs in 2024 and has pursued smart-manufacturing certifications (China's Level 4 smart-manufacturing maturity in 2025).

Patent-litigation posture. Guiyang Hisense is a classic operating-company defendant: 0 cases as plaintiff and 2 as defendant in our tracked data, both filed by Flexiworld Technologies, Inc., an Oregon-based patent assertion entity (listed in Stanford's NPE Litigation Database with acquired patents). The cases are part of a broader Flexiworld v. Hisense campaign asserting wireless-connectivity and streaming patents against Hisense smart TVs, soundbars, and the RemoteNow app, with Guiyang Hisense named among roughly a dozen affiliated Hisense entities.

Notable cases. The tracked suits are Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division, filed June 24, 2022, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap) and Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Company, Ltd. et al. (N.D. Ga., Atlanta Division, filed October 31, 2022). The initial Eastern District of Texas filing reflects that venue's historical popularity with NPE plaintiffs; the action subsequently proceeded in the Northern District of Georgia, where Hisense's U.S. affiliate is based. Flexiworld's campaign reportedly settled before claim construction.

Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Company, Ltd. et al.

settled; administratively closed
Docket:
1:22-cv-04338
Filed:
2022-10-31
Terminated:
2023-04-07
Patents:7609402

Flexiworld sued Hisense and affiliated entities in the Northern District of Georgia, asserting the '402 patent. The case settled and was administratively closed on April 7, 2023, before claim construction, with dismissal with prejudice contemplated.

Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al.

pending as of mid-2022; final outcome unconfirmed
Docket:
2:22-cv-00227
Filed:
2022-06-24

Flexiworld sued the Hisense group in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting the '402 patent along with several additional patents. The case was pending as of mid-2022, and the final outcome was not confirmed in the sources retrieved.

Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al.

not confirmed
Docket:
2:22-cv-00225
Filed:
2022-06-24
Patents:9069510

Flexiworld Technologies sued Hisense and numerous affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting U.S. Patent 9,069,510. Docket activity showed service and answer extensions into December 2022, but no termination order or disposition was confirmed.

Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al.

unknown
Docket:
2:22-cv-00225
Filed:
2022-06-24
Patents:9965233

Listed in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as a case involving patent 9965233. Outcome not verified.

Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al.

pending
Docket:
2:22-cv-00225
Court:
E.D. Tex.
Filed:
2022-06-24
Patents:9836259

Flexiworld sued Hisense Co., Ltd. and affiliated Hisense entities. Filed 2022-06-24. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists this case as one of only two involving patent 9836259.