Defendant

Hisense Int'l America Holdings

1 case as defendant.

Cases
1
Active
1
0 closed
Filed
2022
Top venue
E D Tex Judge Rodney Gilstrap
1 case

Company profile

I'll research this entity before writing the profile.

Let me confirm the corporate structure and the litigation context.

Hisense Int'l America Holdings — full legal name Hisense International America Holdings Co., Ltd. (registered Chinese variant: Qingdao Hisense International America Holdings Co., Ltd., 青岛海信国际营销美洲控股股份有限公司). It is the entity formerly used by Hisense's Hong Kong affiliate, which now operates as Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investment Co., Limited (Rooms 3101–3105, Singga Commercial Centre, 148 Connaught Road West, Hong Kong), registered in Qingdao, Shandong. It sits inside Hisense Group (Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd.), the Qingdao-based appliance and electronics group founded in 1969, which is state-controlled and ultimately controlled by the City of Qingdao. Chinese corporate filings for this entity list two employees on social insurance, indicating an administrative/holding vehicle rather than an operating business.

Parent scale and operations. Hisense Group reported 2024 revenue of RMB 215.3 billion (~US$30B), 46.3% of it overseas, with roughly 116,000 employees (Fortune China 500, 2024). Its listed subsidiaries include Hisense Visual Technology, Hisense Home Appliances, Sanden Holdings, Qianzhao Optoelectronics and Kelin Electric. Group brands (Hisense, Toshiba TV, Ronshen, Kelon, Gorenje, ASKO) span televisions, laser TVs/projectors, soundbars, refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, air conditioners and HVAC, plus commercial displays and LED chips. US sales and manufacturing run through subsidiary Hisense USA Corporation (Suwanee, GA). This named entity's role in the group's Americas chain is importing/selling televisions and parts, including into Mexico.

Litigation posture: pure defendant. Across one tracked case, zero as plaintiff and one as defendant — the pattern of an operating group affiliate defending against third-party assertions, not an NPE.

Notable case. Flexiworld Technologies, Inc. v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al., filed 2022-06-24 in E.D. Tex. before Judge Rodney Gilstrap (2:22-cv-00225, companion 2:22-cv-00228; N.D. Ga. 1:22-cv-04338), naming roughly a dozen Hisense affiliates. Flexiworld is characterized as a non-practicing entity ("failed startup," per the Stanford NPE database; founded by William Ho Chang) asserting wireless content-delivery patents against smart TVs, projectors and soundbars. Separate VideoLabs suits (E.D. Tex., 2024) targeted other Hisense entities.

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

active
Docket:
2:22-cv-00228
Filed:
2022-06-24
Patents:9042811

Flexiworld sued Hisense Co., Ltd. and numerous Hisense affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas. US 9,042,811 is part of the asserted patent set (partial group '408, '811, '088, '324, '056). The docket shows foreign-service waivers and answers due 12/3/2022; no final merits outcome was found.