Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al.

I'll research this case against the docket, PTAB records, and industry coverage.

Good material so far. Now let me pin down the IPRs, the stay, and the docket timeline.

Parties and players

Plaintiff. Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. — a Japanese operating company, not a university or a classic shell NPE. Maxell was founded in 1961 as Maxell Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. and is a long-standing manufacturer of recordable media (magnetic tape, optical/Blu-ray discs) and batteries (alkaline, lithium-ion micro-batteries), and it still sells consumer mobile accessories, wireless chargers, storage and headphones. Importantly, the asserted patents are not Maxell's historic media/battery IP: they came from Hitachi's consumer-electronics side — Hitachi, Ltd. assigned them to Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd. in 2009, which assigned them to Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. in 2013, which (per the Oct. 24, 2017 Rule 25(c) motion, Dkt. 101, granted Dkt. 102) renamed itself Maxell Holdings, Ltd. on Oct. 1, 2017 and conveyed the patents to its wholly owned subsidiary Maxell, Ltd., which was substituted as plaintiff. That history matters: Maxell was running a portfolio-monetization campaign over inherited Hitachi handset/display/communications patents, and it was later characterized in litigation by defendants as "essentially a patent assertion entity" that does not practice the patents (Apple's stay motion in Maxell v. Apple, No. 5:19-cv-00036 (E.D. Tex.), D.I. 239) — a party characterization, not an adjudicated fact.

Defendants. The Huawei entities: Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (the Shenzhen handset unit), Huawei Device USA Inc. (U.S. sales subsidiary, then based in Plano, Texas, with in-house counsel of record), and [Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.](/litigations/by-defendant/Huawei%20Technologies%20Co.%20Ltd.) (parent) as named in the docket. Huawei is the world's largest telecom-equipment vendor and, at the time, a fast-growing smartphone OEM — an operating-company defendant, not a licensing target by industry custom. Maxell was represented by Mayer Brown LLP (Jamie B. Beaber, Alan M. Grimaldi, Robert G. Pluta, Kfir B. Levy, James A. Fussell III, and others) with Patton Tidwell & Schroeder LLP (Geoffrey P. Culbertson) as Texarkana local counsel; Huawei by Covington & Burling LLP (Stanley Young, Anupam Sharma, Gregory S. Nieberg, Derek J. Andros, Hyun S. Byun) with Jennifer Ainsworth of Wilson Robertson & Cornelius PC in Tyler.

Accused technology and procedural posture

The accused technology was Huawei's smartphones and tablets — the suit targeted device-level features rather than a single product: base-station selection and wireless-interface switching, GPS/cellular hybrid positioning, display and video/audio decoding, camera imaging, power management, and touch/proximity power-saving. Maxell's overview pleaded a pre-suit licensing campaign: "numerous meetings and interactions" with Huawei beginning June 2013, detailed technical presentations, and Huawei's decision not to take a license. (For the 2016 case I could not verify the specific accused model list from a primary source; the follow-on complaint Maxell filed in March 2018, No. 5:18-cv-00033, named the Mate 9, Mate 10/10 Pro, P10 Lite/Plus, Honor 7/7X/8/9, Honor 6 Plus, Ascend XT2 and Mate 9 Pro/Lite — so the '178 case likely covered the prior generation of the same product families, but treat the model list as unconfirmed.)

Procedurally: filed November 18, 2016 in the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, jury demand, and docketed as the lead case in a pair with a parallel ZTE suit (No. 5:16-cv-00179). The two cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes only on April 4, 2017 (venue excepted), Markman briefing ran through fall 2017 (P.R. 4-3 statement, Dkt. 74; opening/responsive/reply briefs, Dkts. 95, 100, 106), and the Markman hearing was held November 29, 2017 (Dkts. 118

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and parallel PTAB proceedings.

Key finding already: there's a discrepancy between the metadata patent list and the record. Let me dig into the docket and PTAB proceedings.

Now let me trace the docket events in detail.

Bottom line

This case never reached trial or a merits judgment. It was a licensing-campaign suit that moved through pleading, consolidated Markman practice, and a substantial parallel PTAB attack, and then ended in a confidential global settlement in February 2019 that also terminated thirteen Huawei IPRs. The docket's "closed 2018-07-02" date is not the terminal event and should not be treated as the disposition — see the flag in Part 6.

---

⚠️ Preliminary note on the patents-at-suit list (please read before publication)

The case metadata lists eight patents: 5,396,443; 6,748,317; 8,339,493; 8,736,729; 6,408,193; 6,329,794; 6,816,491; 8,098,695.

The contemporaneous record separates the two companion complaints filed the same day (2016-11-18):

Sources: Hitachi Maxell's Unopposed Motion to Substitute Plaintiff (Dkt. 101, filed 2017-10-24, E.D. Tex.), reproduced at docketalarm; and the Markman order itself, 297 F. Supp. 3d at 675–76 (listing patents "asserted against Huawei" versus "asserted against ZTE USA"). The metadata's eight patents therefore correspond to the ZTE complaint (plus '443). I have followed the metadata in the header but analyzed the record as it actually exists; the distinction matters because it changes which IPRs and which claim constructions attach to this case. Flag for correction before this goes into a client deliverable.

---

I'll research the docket and related sources for plaintiff's counsel in this case.

Strong leads. Let me verify roles, firm details, and check the docket for lead counsel designations.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al., No. 5:16-cv-00178-RWS (E.D. Tex., Texarkana Div.)

Bottom line: Plaintiff (Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., substituted by Maxell, Ltd. in late 2017) was represented by Mayer Brown LLP as national/lead counsel out of its Washington, DC and Chicago offices, with Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP of Texarkana, Texas serving as local counsel. The team was led by Jamie B. Beaber of Mayer Brown's DC office. No in-house Maxell attorney appears as counsel of record on the public docket.

---

Lead / national counsel — Mayer Brown LLP

Local counsel — Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP (Texarkana, TX)

---

Notes, caveats, and sourcing

• Not counsel: David Folsom (former EDTX Chief Judge) appears in the docket records for No. 5:16-cv-00178 and No. 5:16-cv-00179 as mediator, not as plaintiff's counsel.
• Plaintiff substitution: In November 2017, Maxell moved unopposed to substitute Maxell, Ltd. for Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. following the corporate reorganization/name change; the motion recites that "[c]ounsel of record for Hitachi Maxell also represents Maxell." So the same Mayer Brown / Patton Tidwell team carried over — the metadata caption ("Hitachi Maxell") reflects the original filing.
• Consolidation: No. 5:16-cv-00178 was consolidated for pretrial purposes with No. 5:16-cv-00179 (Maxell v. ZTE), so several of the signature blocks above come from consolidated filings captioned in both cases (e.g., Docket Alarm reproductions of D.I. 287-40 and the Nov. 2017 substitution exhibit).
• Verification limits: I confirmed the roster from filed documents reproduced via Docket Alarm, the Justia docket index for 5:16-cv-00178, and Law360/Mayer Brown reporting — but I could not pull the PACER docket sheet itself, so I have not independently verified the specific D.I. number for each individual notice of appearance, nor whether the docket formally flags Beaber as "LEAD ATTORNEY" (that designation appears on the parallel Maxell–Apple docket, 5:19-cv-00036-RWS). The Justia counsel list for this case omits Pluta, Nese, Bonner and Lindinger, even though they appear on filed signature blocks — so treat Justia's list as incomplete rather than exclusive.
• Sealed materials: The termination of the case (July 2, 2018) followed a stipulation of dismissal; I found no indication that counsel identities were sealed. I did not locate any in-house Maxell attorney entering an appearance.
• Key docket anchors: Complaint filed Nov. 18, 2016; claim construction opinion at Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device U.S. Inc., 297 F. Supp. 3d 668 (E.D. Tex. 2018) (Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, Markman hearing Nov. 29, 2017).

I'll research defense counsel of record through the docket, opinions, and firm announcements.

Counsel of record — defendants (Huawei entities)

Bottom line first, with a candor caveat. I was able to identify Huawei's district-court defense counsel from firm biography material and the related PTAB record, but I was not able to pull the actual attorney-appearance entries from the 5:16-cv-00178 docket sheet itself (Dkt. nos. ~5–20). Justia's docket page for this case displays a "Represented By" roll that, on inspection, is plaintiff-side only (Beaber, Culbertson, Fussell, Grimaldi, Levy, Paul, Siddiqui, Streff — all Mayer Brown / Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson). PlainSite's docket table surfaced document titles but not the per-party attorney list. So the names below are grounded in primary/secondary sources but should be confirmed against the docket's appearance entries before publication.

---

1. Confirmed Huawei defense-side counsel

That is the only individual I can name with a source expressly tying him to the Huawei defense in the Maxell district court litigation. I would not name a "local counsel" for Huawei: I found no Texas-local Huawei appearance for this case, and I will not guess at one (the Texarkana/Marshall-local names that appear in the consolidated record — Culbertson, Tidwell; Findlay — belong to plaintiff and to ZTE respectively).

2. Firms confirmed as Huawei-side counsel in the parallel PTAB track (same accused products/patents)

These are firm-level identifications from expert-witness CVs filed in the IPRs, which record who retained the expert; they are not proof of appearance in the district court docket.

3. In-house counsel

No Huawei in-house attorney is identified in any source I located. Huawei Device USA's legal department did not appear by name in the materials available. State this as unknown, not absent.

---

Important corrections / flags for the deliverable

1. Defendant parties. The metadata caption lists "Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.; Huawei Device USA Inc.; Huawei Device Co., Ltd." The actual defendants named in this action, per the Markman order, were Huawei Device USA Inc. and Huawei Device Co., Ltd. ("collectively 'Huawei'"). Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. does not appear as a defendant in the 178 action's substantive rulings. This compounds the caption issue already flagged in the prior sections.

2. The prior section's patent-list flag is now independently corroborated. In the Markman opinion as reproduced on Casetext, the court states Maxell "has asserted fifteen patents in this consolidated action" and lists, as asserted against Huawei: the '443, '139, '440, '292, '517, '901, '760 and '438 patents; and as asserted against ZTE USA: the '317, '493, '729, '193, '794, '491 and '695 patents. Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device U.S. Inc., 297 F. Supp. 3d 668 (E.D. Tex. 2018). That confirms the metadata's eight patents are the ZTE set (plus '443, asserted against both), not the Huawei set. The earlier warning stands and is now sourced to the opinion text itself.

3. Consolidated ZTE-side counsel (not Huawei). For completeness, so no one is misattributed: the counsel listing reported with the Markman opinion identifies, for ZTE Corporation and ZTE USA Inc., attorneys from Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (Los Angeles), Findlay Craft PC (Tyler, TX — Eric Hugh Findlay), and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (San Diego — Nicole Sara Cunningham). PlainSite's attorney page for Cunningham nonetheless lists her client on 5:16-cv-00178 as "ZTE USA Inc." with role "Consol Counter Claimant" — a reminder that the consolidated docket mixes parties and that any counsel list must be party-coded, not case-coded. Separately, Steven A. Moore, Ph.D. appears in the record as "outside counsel to Defendant ZTE (USA) Inc." — again, ZTE, not Huawei.

Recommended verification steps before publication

• Pull the 5:16-cv-00178 docket sheet and read every "Notice of Appearance"/"Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice" entry (roughly Dkt. 5–25 and any later substitutions), and confirm whether Wolf Greenfield, Covington, and/or Fish each filed appearances, and who was designated lead.
• Check the sealing/withdrawal events: the case closed 2018-07-02 by docket entry with a later February 2019 global settlement (per the prior section). Any withdrawal of defense counsel would be docketed near those dates.
• Cross-check against the 5:18-cv-00033 docket (the follow-on Maxell v. Huawei case), where the same defense team would have appeared and where the answer/counterclaims would list defense counsel in the signature block — a reliable proxy if the 178 appearances are sealed or poorly indexed.
• Confirm Nieberg's appearance year and whether he was lead or of counsel; his bio does not distinguish between the 2016 and 2018 Maxell suits.