General Video LLC v. [Defendant Name Unknown]

General Video LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent holding entity formed in Delaware in July 2019, has initiated patent infringement litigation against ASUSTeK Computer Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. General Video LLC's business model focuses on patent licensing and enforcement rather than product manufacturing. The asserted patents, which General Video has been actively acquiring since September 2023 from entities like Sun Patent Trust and Philips, are described as relating to the high-speed, efficient, and secure transmission of audio and video data between transmitting and receiving devices. The accused products allegedly infringing these patents include various DisplayPort-compliant devices such as laptop computers, desktop computers, computer monitors, and video/graphics cards.

The primary patent at issue in this specific case is U.S. Patent No. 9,036,010, titled "TRANSPORT OF STEREOSCOPIC IMAGE DATA OVER A DISPLAY INTERFACE." This patent broadly covers technologies crucial for modern digital display standards, particularly those involving the transmission of stereoscopic image data across display interfaces. General Video LLC claims that this and its other asserted patents are Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs) with respect to one or more versions of the DisplayPort and/or eDP standards, having been determined as such by an independent consultant prior to their inclusion in the DisplayPort Patent Portfolio License offered by Via Licensing Corporation.

The case, 5:24-cv-00126, is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas and has been assigned to District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent plaintiffs due to its reputation as a "rocket docket" with plaintiff-friendly procedural rules and accelerated trial schedules. While the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision aimed to restrict patent venue options, plaintiffs, including General Video, have adapted by, for instance, targeting foreign affiliates to navigate venue limitations. This litigation is notable as part of a broader campaign by General Video LLC, which has filed similar lawsuits against other major technology companies such as Acer, Dell, HP, and Lenovo, all asserting patents related to DisplayPort technology. Furthermore, Intel Corp. and Dell have initiated Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) against General Video's patents, including IPR2025-01036 challenging the validity of US Patent 9,036,010, underscoring the defensive strategies employed by accused infringers. A related case against Lenovo in the Eastern District of Texas (5:24-cv-00122) was dismissed without prejudice due to a lack of personal jurisdiction in August 2025, prompting Lenovo to file a declaratory judgment action in Delaware, highlighting ongoing challenges and strategies regarding venue.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in General Video LLC v. ASUSTEK Computer Inc.

Case: General Video LLC v. ASUSTEK Computer Inc. et al.
Case Number: 5:24-cv-00126
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 9,036,010, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 6,584,443; 7,069,224; 7,225,282; 7,359,437; and 9,843,786.

This patent infringement suit, filed by General Video LLC, is part of a broader litigation campaign asserting six data transmission patents related to DisplayPort standards against multiple technology companies. The specific defendant in this case is ASUSTEK Computer Inc.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

• 2024-08-30 – Complaint Filed: General Video LLC filed its complaint against ASUSTEK Computer Inc. and other related entities in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,584,443; 7,069,224; 7,225,282; 7,359,437; 9,036,010; and 9,843,786. The complaint targets products compliant with various DisplayPort standards, including laptop computers, desktop computers, computer monitors, and video/graphics cards. This case was initially consolidated with similar complaints filed against Acer (5:24-cv-00125), Dell (5:24-cv-00124), HP (5:24-cv-00123), and Lenovo (5:24-cv-00122), with the Lenovo case serving as the lead case.

• 2024-12-12 – Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Related Case): In a related case, defendants in the Dell litigation (1-24-cv-01530 W.D. Tex.) filed a partial motion to dismiss certain claims. For the ASUSTEK case (5:24-cv-00126), General Video LLC and ASUSTEK Computer Inc. filed a Joint Motion for Briefing Schedule and to Continue July 8, 2025 Hearing, and General Video LLC filed an Unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Opposition to ASUSTEK's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Nos. 25, 26). The outcome of ASUSTEK's specific motion to dismiss is not explicitly stated in the provided snippets but was subject to further briefing.

• 2025-03-29 to 2025-04-28 – Discovery Milestones: General Video LLC served its infringement contentions in the related Dell case on March 29, 2025, and in the Eastern District of Texas cases (including ASUSTEK) on April 28, 2025. In response, defendants in each of the Texas cases (including ASUSTEK) provided invalidity contentions, which exceeded 10,000 pages, asserting invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.

• 2025-05-26 – Parallel PTAB IPR Filed: Intel Corp. et al. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01038) petition against General Video, LLC, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,359,437. While this IPR does not target U.S. Patent No. 9,036,010, it involves a patent asserted in the same litigation campaign against the same patent owner. As of the current date, no IPRs specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,036,010 have been found.

• Claim Construction Stage: The parties in the litigation, including General Video LLC and ASUSTEK, have exchanged terms for claim construction, proposed constructions, and extrinsic evidence, indicating that the case has progressed to the Markman stage.

• 2025-08-11 – Dismissal of Lead Case (Related): The lead case, General Video, LLC v. Lenovo Group Limited (5:24-cv-00122), was dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.

• 2025-12-23 – Deconsolidation and Stay: The court ordered the deconsolidation of Case No. 5:24-CV-00126 (ASUSTEK) from the former lead case (5:24-CV-00122). On the same date, a final judgment was entered in the Lenovo case. Pursuant to a joint motion by General Video LLC and ASUSTEK, all deadlines in the ASUSTEK case (5:24-CV-00126) were stayed until January 15, 2026. This stay suggests potential settlement discussions or a temporary pause in the litigation.

Current Posture:
As of the latest available information, the case General Video LLC v. ASUSTEK Computer Inc. (5:24-cv-00126) is active and has been deconsolidated from its former lead case. All deadlines were stayed until January 15, 2026. The parties have advanced to the claim construction stage, exchanging proposed terms and evidence. One of the asserted patents in the broader litigation campaign (U.S. Patent No. 7,359,437) is also subject to a parallel IPR proceeding at the PTAB. There is no public record of a final judgment or settlement in this specific case against ASUSTEK after the stay was implemented.

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record in this case.

Now let me verify the specific docket entries and any additional plaintiff-side appearances.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — General Video, LLC (5:24-cv-00126-RWS)

Short answer: General Video, LLC is represented by a two-firm team: McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. (Chicago) as lead/outside counsel, and Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP (Texarkana, TX) as local counsel. This is the same team that appears for General Video across the entire DisplayPort campaign (5:24-cv-00122/123/124/125/126 and the W.D. Tex. Dell case), and the same core attorneys defend the patents at the PTAB.

⚠️ Important correction to the previously generated "Defendant representatives" section. That section assigned Peter J. McAndrews, Matthew G. McAndrews, Geoffrey P. Culbertson, and Kelly B. Tidwell to ASUSTeK. That is a misread of the docket. Docket entries in 5:24-cv-00126 state expressly that those appearances are "on behalf of GENERAL VIDEO, LLC" (Dkts. 3, 4, 6, 10), and the docket's party block lists them under Plaintiff. There is no dual representation and no conflict — the "highly unusual" note should be disregarded.

1. Lead Counsel — McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. (Chicago, IL)

Practice note: McAndrews, Held & Malloy is a Chicago IP boutique founded by Peter J. McAndrews; the firm acts as national patent-enforcement counsel for General Video and prosecutes the parallel PTAB defense, which gives it both the district-court and IPR side of the DisplayPort portfolio. (Firm-level bios were not independently re-verified in this pass; role/admission data comes from docket and PTAB filings.)

2. Local Counsel — Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP (Texarkana, TX)

Both are the plaintiff-side signatories on the E.D. Tex. joint filings in this campaign (e.g., the Apr. 29, 2025 Joint Notice Regarding Mediation in the lead case, bearing the McAndrews and Texarkana signature blocks). Patton Tidwell & Culbertson is a Texarkana firm regularly used as E.D. Tex. local counsel in patent cases.

3. Apparent counsel who are NOT plaintiff's counsel here (avoid confusion)

• Eric Hugh Findlay (Findlay Craft, P.C., Tyler, TX) — a search snippet merges his signature block with "Attorneys for Plaintiff, GENERAL VIDEO, LLC," but the consolidated docket shows him as lead attorney for Defendant Acer Inc. (member case 5:24-cv-00125). He is not counsel for General Video in the ASUS case.
• ASUSTeK's actual counsel of record in 5:24-cv-00126: Robert J. Benson and Jeffrey Lance Johnson (Baker Botts L.L.P., Houston) — Dkts. 19–20 (Mar. 25, 2025), re-noticed in the lead case at Dkts. 46–47 — and Gregory Blake Thompson (Mann, Tindel, Thompson, Tyler, TX) as local counsel (filed Dkt. 69, the unopposed motion to move the hearing on ASUSTeK's motion to dismiss).
• Michael Farnan (Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE) appears for General Video in a different case — Lenovo (United States) Inc. v. General Video, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01065 (D. Del.) — alongside pro hac vice admission of Peter and Matthew McAndrews. Not counsel in 5:24-cv-00126.

4. Flags on contradictions with the earlier sections / metadata

1. Defendant-representative section is wrong as to Culbertson, Tidwell, and both McAndrewses (see above). Their notes about a possible conflict or "clerical error" are unfounded.
2. IPR coverage of the '010 patent: the earlier "Key legal developments" text said "no IPRs specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,036,010 have been found," while the overview cited IPR2025-01036 against '010. Docket No. 56 in the lead case (Jun. 6, 2025) — filed by Peter J. McAndrews — is a "NOTICE of Inter Parties Review Filings for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,359,437, 9,036,010, and 9,843,786." The '010 IPR therefore exists; the "no IPR" statement is the error. (The PTAB record shows IPR2025-01036 appears to be the Intel/Dell challenge to '010.)
3. Case status: a third-party litigation database (Patsnap) reports this case as closed on May 15, 2026, "dismissed with prejudice." That is not confirmed by a docket entry I could open in this pass, and it post-dates the Dec. 23, 2025 stay (through Jan. 15, 2026) described earlier. If accurate, the appearance list above is the final one. Treat the termination date as unverified and worth a PACER docket pull. (Note: "closed/dismissed" statuses for this campaign are plausible — e.g., the HP case reportedly ended in joint dismissal and the Lenovo lead case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction on Aug. 11, 2025.)
4. Caption: metadata lists the defendant as "[Defendant Name Unknown]"; the docket confirms it is ASUSTeK Computer Inc., with ASUS Global Pte. Ltd. and ASUS Technology Pte. Ltd. voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on Nov. 18, 2024 (Dkt. 7; Order at Dkt. 9, Nov. 20, 2024).

5. Sourcing

• Docket sheet for General Video, LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. 5:24-cv-00126-RWS (E.D. Tex.) — Dkts. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 19, 20, 69: dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/5:2024cv00126/232656; litigation.rpxcorp.com
• Consolidated lead-case docket, No. 5:24-cv-00122-RWS (party block listing Peter J. McAndrews as LEAD ATTORNEY for Plaintiff; Dkts. 60, 67–93) — reproduced as Ex. 2003 in IPR2025-01038 and on CourtListener: courtlistener.com/docket/69116606
• Patent Owner Mandatory Notices, IPR2025-01038 (Jun. 17, 2025), listing Peter J. McAndrews (lead), Rajendra A. Chiplunkar and David Z. Petty (back-up), McAndrews, Held & Malloy
• Joint Notice Regarding Mediation, Apr. 29, 2025 (plaintiff signature block: Peter J. McAndrews, Matthew G. McAndrews, Culbertson, Tidwell; Acer block: Eric Hugh Findlay)
• Patsnap litigation record for 5:24-cv-00126 (closure date/basis — unverified)

Caveat: no counsel for General Video appears to be sealed or under a protective order; all appearances above are public. The only uncertainty is whether additional McAndrews attorneys (e.g., David Z. Petty) or other firm personnel made formal district-court appearances later in 2026, which I could not verify without a live PACER pull of the post-stay docket.

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. is represented by attorneys from the firms McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. and Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel of record for ASUSTeK Computer Inc. in General Video LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc.:

Lead Counsel:

• Peter J. McAndrews
  • Firm: McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
  • Office Location: Chicago, IL
  • Note: Peter J. McAndrews is also listed as lead counsel for General Video LLC in related cases, which may indicate a prior relationship or a unique arrangement in this specific litigation. It's highly unusual for the same attorney to represent opposing parties in ongoing litigation. This may be a clerical error in the public docket information or reflects a very specific and limited scope of representation for different entities involved in broader patent portfolio licensing.
• Matthew George McAndrews
  • Firm: McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
  • Office Location: Chicago, IL
  • Note: Matthew George McAndrews is also listed as an attorney for General Video LLC in related cases. Similar to Peter J. McAndrews, this raises questions about potential conflicts or a highly specialized arrangement. He has provided declarations in related PTAB IPR proceedings on behalf of General Video, LLC.

Local Counsel (Eastern District of Texas):

• Geoffrey Patton Culbertson
  • Firm: Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP
  • Office Location: Texarkana, TX
  • Note: His firm, Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP, is a Texarkana-based law firm that often acts as local counsel in Eastern District of Texas patent cases.
• Kelly B. Tidwell
  • Firm: Patton Tidwell & Culbertson
  • Office Location: Texarkana, TX
  • Note: Kelly B. Tidwell is also associated with Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, acting as local counsel.

Other Counsel:

• Gregory Blake Thompson
  • Firm: Mann, Tindel, Thompson
  • Note: Gregory Blake Thompson is also listed as representing ASUSTeK Computer Inc. in the consolidated docket for related cases.

It is important to note the unusual circumstance of Peter J. McAndrews and Matthew George McAndrews of McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd. appearing as counsel for both the plaintiff, General Video LLC, and the defendant, ASUSTeK Computer Inc., across various dockets related to this patent litigation campaign. This could be a data discrepancy within the public records or reflect a very particular and delineated scope of legal engagement, such as the firm representing General Video as the patent owner while individual attorneys from the same firm are associated with the defendant for specific, non-conflicting tasks or perhaps in error on some docket entries. Further investigation into specific filings (e.g., Notices of Appearance) would be necessary to clarify this.

The case was originally part of a consolidated action (5:24-cv-00122) and was later deconsolidated to proceed under its original cause number 5:24-cv-00126. A stay was granted in the case until January 15, 2026.