General Video LLC v. Hewlett-Packard (HP)

General Video LLC, a patent assertion entity (NPE), initiated patent infringement litigation against Hewlett-Packard (HP) in the Eastern District of Texas. HP Inc. is a global technology manufacturer known for a wide array of products including computers and printers. The lawsuit, filed on August 30, 2024, involved six U.S. patents related to video encoding, signal processing, and display data communication, which are foundational to modern digital display standards. Specifically, patent US 9843786 B2 is described as covering display standard implementation. General Video alleged that HP's products, including laptops, desktops, monitors, and video/graphics cards, infringed these patents by complying with, implementing, and/or embodying the DisplayPort (DP) standard. This framing suggests the dispute centered on DisplayPort protocol compliance, a characteristic strategy in standards-adjacent patent litigation.

The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, and presided over by Chief Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent infringement lawsuits due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly juries, local rules, and a commitment to expedited trials. This district often attracts NPEs. The litigation concluded with a joint stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice on January 27, 2026, where each party agreed to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs, indicating a negotiated resolution, likely a confidential settlement, without publicly disclosed damages or injunctive relief.

This case is notable due to General Video LLC's pattern as a patent assertion entity, asserting patents that were previously held by companies like Panasonic (via Sun Patent Trust) and Philips, and characterizing them as standard-essential patents (SEPs) related to the DisplayPort Patent Portfolio License. The fact that the case was part of a larger campaign, with General Video filing similar complaints against Acer, ASUSTek, Dell, and Lenovo concurrently, highlights a broader patent assertion strategy targeting products compliant with the DisplayPort standard. Furthermore, the existence of at least one Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01038) filed by Intel Corp. et al. against General Video LLC concerning one of the asserted patents (though not explicitly 9843786, the docket mentions General Video v. HP in relation to IPR documents) underscores the defensive actions taken by manufacturers against such assertions. The dismissal with prejudice against HP on these DisplayPort-related patents is a significant outcome, foreclosing future re-litigation on the same claims between these parties.

General Video LLC v. Hewlett-Packard (HP): Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement lawsuit General Video LLC v. Hewlett-Packard (HP), filed in the Eastern District of Texas under case number 5:24-cv-00123, asserted US patent 9843786 among a portfolio of six display technology patents. The case concluded relatively quickly with a voluntary dismissal, indicating a negotiated settlement.

Legal Developments

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: General Video LLC initiated the lawsuit on August 30, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that HP's products, specifically those complying with the DisplayPort (DP) standard, infringed its patents covering video and display signal processing technology.
  • No specific details regarding HP's answer or any counterclaims are publicly available from the provided search results, likely due to the early resolution of the case.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • The case was dismissed before it reached substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • There is no indication that the case progressed to the claim construction (Markman) stage before its dismissal.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • Given the early dismissal, no strategically significant discovery milestones were reached or publicly reported.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • The case did not proceed to trial, and therefore, there was no verdict or post-trial motions.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment:

  • Joint Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal: On January 27, 2026, General Video, LLC and Hewlett-Packard Co. filed a Joint Stipulation and Motion of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
  • Dismissal with Prejudice: Chief Judge Schroeder granted the motion, ordering that all claims by both parties were dismissed with prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. This dismissal with prejudice, without damages or injunctive relief, indicates a negotiated resolution, likely a confidential settlement.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A related IPR proceeding, Intel Corp. v. General Video, LLC - IPR2025-01036, was identified, which references the district court case (5:24-cv-00123). While the specific patent 9843786 is part of the asserted portfolio in the district court case, the direct link between IPR2025-01036 and patent 9843786 is not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets. Generally, IPRs are used by accused infringers to challenge patent validity and can be a basis to request a stay of related litigation. However, the impact of this specific IPR on the General Video v. HP litigation, which was dismissed, is not explicitly stated.

Outcome

The litigation concluded with a joint stipulation for voluntary dismissal with prejudice on January 27, 2026. This outcome signifies a final resolution between the parties, barring General Video LLC from re-litigating the same claims against HP concerning the six asserted patents, including US patent 9843786, particularly regarding DisplayPort standard-compliant products. The dismissal with each party bearing its own costs is characteristic of a confidential settlement reached out of court.

General Video LLC, the plaintiff in General Video LLC v. Hewlett-Packard (HP), Case No. 5:24-cv-00123, was represented by a team of experienced patent litigators. While specific docket entries for counsel appearances in this exact case were not directly retrieved in the search, information from related cases and firm profiles suggests the likely counsel of record for the plaintiff. The case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice via a joint stipulation, indicating a confidential settlement.

Based on available information and common practice in the Eastern District of Texas for patent assertion entities, the following attorneys are likely to have represented General Video LLC:

• Eric M. Albritton

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Eric M. Albritton, P.C.
  • Office Location: Longview, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Albritton is an experienced trial and appellate lawyer who has represented patent holders in patent infringement litigation, including cases involving video compression and cellular communications. He has been trial counsel in over 65 jury trials and has been listed as a Texas Super Lawyer since 2009. His firm, Eric M. Albritton, P.C., focuses on litigation, including patent enforcement or defense.

• Michael C. Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel/Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Scheef & Stone, LLP
  • Office Location: Marshall, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Smith is a partner whose practice focuses on complex commercial and patent litigation in federal court, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, where he has appeared as counsel of record in over 900 civil cases. He is also recognized as an Intellectual Property Trailblazer by the National Law Journal and maintains a weblog tracking Eastern District news and caselaw, with a strong focus on IP and patent litigation.

• Christopher V. Goodpastor

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: DiNovo Price LLP (or Watts Law Firm LLP, previously listed)
  • Office Location: Austin, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Goodpastor is a trial lawyer specializing in patent and antitrust litigation. He has served as lead counsel in numerous high-stakes patent litigation matters, including securing jury verdicts and favorable settlements for plaintiffs. He also handles inter partes reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• William R. Woodford

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Avantech Law, LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated for a primary office, but Avantech Law has attorneys in various locations. Mr. Woodford's firm has a stated commitment to redefining legal services for clients in the Americas, Europe, and Asia-Pacific.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Woodford is a trial lawyer specializing in complex intellectual property litigation, with over two decades of experience. He has a track record of success in district courts and at the appellate level, including a landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court on enhanced damages in patent cases. He has secured multi-million dollar jury verdicts in patent infringement cases.

• Geoffrey Patton Culbertson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP
  • Office Location: Texarkana, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Culbertson was listed as counsel for General Video, LLC in a closely related case (5:24-cv-00126) in the Eastern District of Texas, suggesting his involvement in the plaintiff's patent litigation efforts in the district.

While Richard J. D'Amico was part of the initial prompt, the searches did not yield a clear connection to General Video LLC or patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas for this specific individual. The results for similar names pertained to different legal areas or jurisdictions. Therefore, he is not included in the list of identified counsel for the plaintiff in this case.

Here is the counsel of record representing Hewlett-Packard (HP) in General Video LLC v. Hewlett-Packard:

• Elana Beth Araj

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP – New York office
  • Relevant Experience: Elana Beth Araj has appeared on behalf of HP Inc. in this patent infringement case.

• Vivian S. Kuo

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP – Washington office
  • Relevant Experience: Vivian S. Kuo has appeared on behalf of HP Inc. in this patent infringement case.

• Melissa Richards Smith

  • Role: Counsel (likely local counsel due to Eastern District of Texas focus)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP
  • Relevant Experience: Melissa Richards Smith's firm, Gillam & Smith, LLP, is known for its litigation practice, often serving as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.