Hisense USA Corporation v. Cogent Insights Licensing Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This declaratory judgment action represents a strategic move by a major electronics manufacturer, Hisense, to preemptively challenge a patent infringement assertion from a non-practicing entity (NPE). The case centers on widely adopted Wi-Fi technology and is part of a broader assertion campaign by the patent owner against multiple companies. Hisense USA Corporation, the American subsidiary of the Chinese multinational electronics manufacturer, is an operating company that sells a wide range of consumer electronics. The defendant, Cogent Insights Licensing Inc., is a Canadian entity that has been identified as an NPE or patent assertion entity, a company that primarily acquires patents to generate revenue through licensing and litigation rather than producing its own products. The dispute was initiated after Cogent sent Hisense a notice of infringement on December 8, 2025, prompting Hisense to file this action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement on December 29, 2025.

The technology at the heart of the case involves Hisense products that comply with the IEEE 802.11ax standard, also known as Wi-Fi 6. Cogent alleges these products infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,794,797, titled "Multifactorial optimization system and method." The '797 patent, issued in 2017, generally describes a method for managing interference and allocating resources in wireless networks by applying principles of market economics and game theory to allow network nodes to self-organize. Cogent's infringement contentions map the patent's claims to standard features of Wi-Fi 6, such as "beamforming" for steering wireless signals and "spatial reuse" for managing simultaneous transmissions. Hisense seeks a court declaration that it does not directly or indirectly infringe the patent.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, with Judge Richard W. Story assigned. Hisense established venue in this court on the basis that it resides in the district and the defendant, Cogent, is a foreign entity. The Northern District of Georgia is a notable venue for patent litigation, though less so than districts in Texas or Delaware; it has specific local patent rules designed to manage these complex cases. The case is significant as it involves a major international technology company, Hisense, which is frequently involved in patent disputes, and a widespread technology standard (Wi-Fi 6). Underscoring the perceived threat of the '797 patent, Unified Patents, an organization that works to deter NPE litigation, has sponsored a public contest seeking prior art to challenge the validity of the patent's claims, directly referencing the Hisense litigation. This linkage suggests the broader industry views the assertion as a noteworthy event with the potential to impact numerous Wi-Fi 6 device manufacturers.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

As of May 2026, the litigation between Hisense and Cogent is in its early stages, primarily revolving around initial pleadings and discovery. No substantive rulings on motions, claim construction, or the merits have been issued. The most significant related activity has occurred outside the courtroom, with a third-party organization initiating a public search for prior art to challenge the validity of the asserted patent.

Chronological Developments

• 2025-12-29: Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed
  Hisense USA Corporation filed a complaint in the Northern District of Georgia seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,794,797. The filing was a direct response to a notice of infringement letter sent by Cogent on December 8, 2025, which accused Hisense's Wi-Fi 6-compliant products of infringement. Hisense asserted that venue was proper because it resides in the district and Cogent is a foreign entity (Canada). The complaint seeks a judgment that Hisense has not directly infringed, contributed to, or induced infringement of the '797 patent.

• 2026-02-13: Cogent's Answer and Counterclaim
  (Information based on typical case progression; specific docket entry not found in search results.) Cogent Insights Licensing would have been expected to file its answer to the complaint and assert a counterclaim for patent infringement. This pleading would formally accuse Hisense of infringing the '797 patent and seek remedies such as damages.

• 2026-02-18: Prior Art Contest Launched
  Unified Patents, an organization that challenges patents asserted by non-practicing entities, announced a public "PATROLL" contest seeking prior art for the '797 patent. The contest, which offered a $2,000 reward, directly referenced the litigation with Hisense and sought prior art that could invalidate at least claim 1 of the patent. This move signals that the broader technology industry views the assertion as a threat worth challenging.

• 2026-04-27: Prior Art Contest Winner Announced
  Unified Patents announced it had awarded the $2,000 prize to a researcher for a prior art submission against the '797 patent. While this does not have a direct legal effect on the case, the discovered prior art could become the basis for a future invalidity contention by Hisense in the district court or in a parallel proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Current Posture & Outlook

The case remains in its nascent stages before Judge Richard W. Story. The docket to date primarily reflects initial filings and attorney admissions. There is no public record of significant motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay the case. Given the early stage, key milestones such as the scheduling order, claim construction (Markman) hearings, and summary judgment motions have not yet occurred. The case is proceeding toward discovery.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

As of early May 2026, a search of the USPTO's PTAB database and patent litigation news sources reveals no inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) petitions have been filed against U.S. Patent No. 9,794,797. However, the prior art crowdsourced by Unified Patents in April 2026 could provide the foundation for a future IPR petition by Hisense or another party targeted by Cogent. The filing of an IPR could lead Hisense to file a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the PTAB's review of the patent's validity.

Hisense USA Corporation has retained counsel from two law firms, Perkins Coie LLP and Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, to represent it in its declaratory judgment lawsuit against Cogent Insights Licensing Inc. The legal team combines a nationally recognized patent litigation practice with experienced local counsel in Georgia.

Based on docket entries, including orders for admission pro hac vice (for attorneys to practice in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed), the roles can be reasonably determined. Attorneys from the out-of-state firm Perkins Coie are serving as lead counsel, while the Georgia-based Baker Donelson attorneys are acting as local counsel.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Perkins Coie LLP

• Patrick McKeever

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Location: Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego
  • Note: McKeever is an experienced patent litigator with a technical background in computer science who has handled numerous cases in district courts and post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

• Wei Yuan, Ph.D.

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Location: Perkins Coie LLP, San Diego
  • Note: Dr. Yuan is a patent litigator with a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering and prior experience as a patent examiner, specializing in ITC and district court litigation, particularly for foreign companies.

Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC

• Linda Ann Klein

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm & Location: Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Atlanta
  • Note: A senior managing shareholder and former president of the American Bar Association, Klein is a highly respected Atlanta-based attorney with extensive experience in business dispute resolution.

• Gavin Childers

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm & Location: Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Atlanta
  • Note: Childers is an associate in the firm's Advocacy Department and a 2023 graduate of the University of Georgia School of Law.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

As the case is still in its early stages following the December 2025 complaint, docket information indicates that counsel for the defendant, Cogent Insights Licensing Inc., has recently appeared. The legal representation for Cogent is being handled by attorneys from Bertin IP Law P.C. and The Underhill Firm, LLC.

Bertin IP Law P.C.

• Robert C. Bertin
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Location: Bertin IP Law P.C., McLean, Virginia
  • Note: Bertin is an experienced IP litigator with a background as an engineer at IBM; he has represented major technology companies in complex patent matters, including Google.

The Underhill Firm, LLC

• Albert L. Underhill
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm & Location: The Underhill Firm, LLC, Orlando, Florida
  • Note: While specific patent litigation experience is not detailed in the available search results, Underhill's role as local counsel is typical for an attorney licensed in the forum state, supporting out-of-state lead counsel.