Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corp. et al.

I'll research this case against the docket and secondary sources before drafting.

Good sourcing base. Now let me verify the two specific patents' technology and the IPR history.

Case roadmap — Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corp., No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS (E.D. Tex., Texarkana Div.)

Caption note. The docket caption is Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation et al. (the "Hitachi Maxell" name in the case metadata reflects the pre‑2017 corporate name; the plaintiff appears as Maxell, Ltd. throughout the docket). The presiding judge was Robert W. Schroeder III — not Judge Gilstrap, a point worth fixing in any case summary. The case was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the parallel Huawei action, No. 5:16-cv-00178-RWS (lead case).

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2016-11-18 — Maxell files the complaint in E.D. Tex., Texarkana Division, against ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc., asserting eight patents: U.S. 5,396,443; 6,748,317; 8,339,493; 8,736,729; 6,408,193; 6,329,794; 6,816,491; and 8,098,695. The complaint alleged Maxell notified ZTE of infringement beginning in 2013 and that ZTE refused a license after three years of negotiations — the foundation for the later willfulness case.
• 2017 (throughout) — Service on ZTE Corporation (Shenzhen) became the dominant early issue: ZTE Corp. would not accept service, and per contemporaneous reporting the case "was put on hold for nearly a year." I could not verify the precise procedural vehicle (Hague Convention service / motion to dismiss for insufficient service) from a primary docket entry; treat that detail as unconfirmed.
• Answer/counterclaims — ZTE (USA) Inc. answered and asserted invalidity/non‑infringement defenses, litigating the case on the merits (its later Rule 50/59 motion and expert reports confirm the invalidity case). I did not locate a primary citation fixing the answer date or the exact counterclaim counts.
• 2018-03 — Judge Schroeder bifurcated the ZTE USA and ZTE Corp. claims and sent the ZTE USA claims to trial; the ZTE Corp. claims were severed into a separate action, No. 5:18-cv-00080-RWS (Law360 describes the bifurcated suit; a PTAB petition identifies 5:18-cv-00080 as filed 2018-06-15). Separately, on 2018-03-02, Maxell filed a different 10‑patent suit against both ZTE entities, No. 5:18-cv-00034-RWS.

2. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2017-11-29

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

Good initial results. Let me search additional angles.

Let me check the post-trial outcome and additional outlets.

Press coverage & analysis

The verdict itself. Law360 (Dorothy Atkins, 2018-07-02) reported that a unanimous six-member Texarkana jury found on Friday, 2018-06-29 that ZTE (USA) Inc. willfully infringed seven Maxell smartphone patents and awarded $43.3 million, ending a two-week trial before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III that began 2018-06-18. Law360 listed the patents-in-suit as U.S. 6,748,317; 8,339,493; 8,736,729; 6,408,193; 6,329,794; 6,816,491; and 8,098,695, noted that ZTE withdrew an eighth, expired patent shortly before trial to streamline the case, and explained that the willfulness finding exposed ZTE to treble damages. It also flagged a wrinkle that later mattered: the jury found some claims "routine and conventional" — an Alice step-two factor — over Maxell's objection, leaving that issue for post-trial motions. WIPR (2018-07-04, republished by CIP Lawyer/IPR Daily) gave the same $43.3 million figure, said the jury found infringement of seven of eight patents and reached no ruling on the '443 patent, described the asserted technology as "wireless flash drives, multimedia devices, and storage and memory devices," and quoted Mayer Brown's Jamie Beaber: "we are happy we were able to underscore the significance and value of the inventions within Maxell's portfolio." The Recorder (Scott Graham, syndicated via Yahoo Finance) added two details the other accounts missed: the jury awarded Maxell its entire royalty ask, and at least some of the patents were practiced by 105 accused ZTE products; it also reported that the PTAB on Monday 2018-07-02 turned away the last of ZTE's seven administrative validity challenges. Notably for this case file: every press list of the seven adjudicated patents includes both the '729 and '493 patents, and Maxell's Rule 50 opposition (Dkt. 292, filed 2018-08-28) defends the verdict on "'493 and '729 Patents" specifically — so the trial verdict did rest in part on the '729 patent, resolving the uncertainty flagged in the earlier case summary.

Why the trade press treated it as significant. IAM published a 2018-07-13 interview with Maxell's licensing chief headlined "After courtroom win against ZTE, Maxell licensing chief discusses US, Europe enforcement drive," framing the award as the Japanese company's first jury decision since it launched a US enforcement campaign — I found only the indexed teaser for this piece, not the paywalled full text, so I cannot characterize its specific claims. The Recorder supplied the portfolio context the interview expands on: Maxell then owned roughly 5,300 patents, many bought from Hitachi's optronics division in 2013, and was asserting some 47 patents against BlackBerry, Olympus, Huawei, ASUSTeK, Blu Products, Fandango and FOTV (per RPX data). IAM had already placed the ZTE case in a strategic frame in a 2018-03-05 blog post on Canon and Hitachi enforcement styles, describing Maxell's campaign against ZTE, Huawei and BlackBerry as evidence that Japanese corporates were abandoning the traditional preference for private negotiation — and noting that Olympus sued Maxell in February 2018, plausibly in reaction to "a very strong licence approach."

The settlement and the money trail. Law360 (Daniel Siegal, 2019-02-04) reported that Maxell and ZTE reached a confidential settlement of both the '179 case and the bifurcated 5:18-cv-00080 case, quoting the joint motion's statement to Judge Schroeder that "All matters in controversy between the parties have been settled in principle," with the agreement to be filed under seal and deadlines stayed 30 days. Law360 noted the settlement covered the seven patents the jury found infringed. A separate Law360 report on the Huawei settlement placed the ZTE deal "in early February" and weeks before Huawei's, again with no terms disclosed. No press account I found reports what Judge Schroeder actually did on enhancement or fees — coverage stops at "could potentially be on the hook for treble damages." For the record, Maxell's proposed post-trial order (Dkt. 287-43) would have awarded the $43.3M verdict plus a 100% enhancement ($43.3M), prejudgment interest from 2011, $154,178.10 in costs, and attorney's fees — but that is a party-submitted [proposed] order, not a reported ruling, and no outlet reported its entry.

Where reporting is thin, divergent, or goes beyond the record. Coverage of this case is essentially trade-press only: I found no Reuters, Bloomberg, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O or EFF Deeplinks article on the ZTE verdict, notwithstanding that at least one Chinese-language account attributes the news to "Reuters" (路透社) without a link — I could not verify any Reuters piece and would not rely on that attribution. Chinese-language IP trade press covered it heavily: IPR Daily framed the award against the backdrop of ZTE's then-pending US export-ban settlement, and 知产力 (2018-07-05) published a patent-by-patent verdict table, including the accused products tied to each patent. The most consequential non-press disclosure came from ZTE itself: its 2018 half-year report told investors that Maxell had not demanded a specific damages amount in either suit, that the 2018-06-29 verdict covered only ZTE USA, that the case awaited the judge's first-instance judgment, and that ZTE had booked a provision in its financial statements based on outside counsel's opinion — a settlement/reserve posture that no US outlet reported. Minor divergences among outlets: rounding ("$43 million" in The Recorder vs. "$43.3 million" in Law360 and WIPR), and the characterization of the patents' subject matter (WIPR's storage/multimedia framing vs. The Recorder's camera, audio, power-management and pedestrian-navigation description, the latter matching the patents' actual specifications).

Sources

• Maxell Scores (\Phi 43M) EDTX Jury Win In ZTE Patent Trial
• Maxell, Huawei Reach Terms To End Smartphone Patent Suit
• Maxell, ZTE Reach Settlement After () 43M(Patent Verdict
• irbis.fips.ru
• Organisation: Asustek Computer
• 中兴通讯在美被判故意侵犯Maxell专利权，赔偿4300万美元
• 因侵犯智能手机专利 中兴被判赔偿Maxell 4330万美元 - 关注司法审判
• ZTE to pay Maxell $43m for infringing smartphone patents
• Organisation: Hitachi
• 30. Expert Witness for Mayer Brown (for Hitachi Maxell) in Hitachi Maxell vs Huawei and Hitachi Maxell vs ZTE, Case No
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• 70. On information and belief, Defendants further infringe the '729 Patent through additional products utilizing the same or rea...

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

Let me pull the fuller docket appearance list and verify individual counsel bios.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. (formerly Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.)

One threshold point on party identity: the plaintiff at filing was Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.; the court substituted Maxell, Ltd. as plaintiff by order dated October 26, 2017, and the caption on post-2017 filings reads Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE (USA) Inc. The same counsel team carried through the substitution — no change of counsel accompanied it. (This is consistent with the docket text surfaced on the Unified Patents docket report for 5:16-cv-00179.)

The case was staffed as a Mayer Brown LLP national trial team out of the firm's Washington, DC office, with a Texarkana firm as local counsel. That structure is confirmed by contemporaneous press reporting (Law360, July 2, 2018; The Recorder/ALM, "Maxell Wins $43M in Smartphone Patent Dispute With ZTE") and by the docket.

Lead trial counsel

Trial team partners

Other Mayer Brown counsel appearing for the plaintiff

Local counsel

In-house counsel

No Maxell/Hitachi in-house attorney appears as counsel of record on the public docket entries I could review. Maxell coordinated the case through its IP/legal function and its Japanese parent (Tatsuya Koyama of Mayer Brown appears on later Maxell-side service lists as the Japan-based client-communication contact), but no in-house lawyer is identified as counsel of record here.

Sealed-material note: several key filings were filed under seal (e.g., Maxell's sealed Daubert replies at Docs. 69–71 and the sealed summary-judgment papers in the consolidated pretrial record, 5:16-cv-178 Docs. 196–207). Counsel identities are not sealed; only the substance of those filings is.

Docket anchors for the appearances

• Doc. 8 — Notice of Attorney Appearance, Tiffany A. Miller (Nov. 22, 2016) — full text available at docketalarm.com (case 5:16-cv-00179, doc. 8).
• Nov. 22, 2016 — Notice of Attorney Appearance, Jamie B. Beaber; also appearances by Amanda Kay Streff and Saqib Javaid Siddiqui.
• Dec. 1, 2016 — Notice of Attorney Appearance, Alan M. Grimaldi.
• Nov.–Dec. 2016 — appearance by Baldine Brunel Paul; Dec. 15, 2016 — summons notice filed by Geoffrey Culbertson (later refiled after being entered in error), confirming Patton Tidwell's involvement from case opening.
• Early 2017 — appearances by James A. Fussell III, Kfir B. Levy and Bryan Christopher Nese; Feb. 6, 2017 proposed discovery/protective/scheduling orders signed by Fussell.
• Oct. 26, 2017 — Order substituting Maxell, Ltd. for Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
• June 29, 2018 — trial verdict; trial team confirmed by Law360 as "Jamie Beaber, Alan Grimaldi, Kfir Levy, Tripp Fussell of Mayer Brown LLP and … Geoff Culbertson of Patton Tidwell & Culbertson LLP."

---

Flags for the case file (contradictions with the metadata / prior sections)

1. Verdict date. Prior narrative says "in or about July 2018." The verdict was returned Friday, June 29, 2018; Law360's story ran July 2, 2018, which likely explains the drift.
2. Outcome status is materially out of date. The metadata status "jury verdict (willful infringement; damages awarded)" is contradicted by the post-trial record surfaced in search: the court's order resolving Maxell's post-trial motions and renewed JMOL (Doc. 291, dated Aug. 28, 2018) denied Maxell's motions, entered judgment for ZTE USA on the § 101 counterclaims as to the '317 and '794 patents, vacated the jury's damages award as unsupported by substantial evidence, vacated the willfulness finding under Halo, and declined fees under § 285; a Final Judgment dismissing with prejudice followed on March 12, 2019 (Judge Schroeder), with each side bearing its own costs. Recommend the overview be corrected to "verdict for plaintiff, subsequently vacated in part on post-trial motions; final judgment of dismissal with prejudice entered 3/12/2019." I have not yet verified whether the dismissal followed a settlement/license or an appeal, and I have not located a Federal Circuit opinion — treat that gap as open.
3. Patent-specific verdict question. The prior note that it "could not confirm whether the trial verdict specifically rested on the '729 patent" can be tightened: Maxell's post-trial briefing (Doc. 292, Aug. 28, 2018) argues substantial evidence supports infringement of claim 1 of the '729 patent and claim 5 of the '493 patent, and the parties briefed § 103 invalidity of claims 5–6 of the '493 and claims 1–2 of the '729 — so both patents were in the verdict package, with the '493/'729 pair tried together as a unit. The '729 and '493 claims were not among the claims

I'll research the defense counsel of record against the docket and secondary sources.

Good — Pillsbury Winthrop appears as ZTE's counsel. Let me identify the specific attorneys and their roles.

Counsel of Record — ZTE Corp. & ZTE (USA) Inc., Maxell, Ltd. v. ZTE Corp., No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS (E.D. Tex., Texarkana Div.)

Bottom line: ZTE was defended by a two-tier team — Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP as national/lead counsel out of its San Diego office, with Eric H. Findlay and Brian Craft of Findlay Craft, P.C. (Tyler, Texas) as local counsel. That structure is corroborated both by the CM/ECF notice-of-electronic-filing service list for the case and by contemporaneous trade press reporting on the June 29, 2018 verdict. There was also an early, short-lived appearance by different counsel (below) before the Pillsbury/Findlay Craft team settled in.

---

1. Lead / national counsel — Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

2. Local counsel — Findlay Craft, P.C. (Tyler, TX)

3. Early appearances (superseded)

4. In-house counsel

I found no reliable identification of ZTE in-house counsel appearing of record. ZTE's 2018 Annual Report refers only to "the attorney appointed by ZTE USA," and the case-specific service mailbox in the ECF correspondence (US-CLIENT-HM-ZTE-Service) is Maxell's client group, not ZTE personnel. Don't populate this row without a primary source.

---

Notes, flags, and sourcing gaps

1. Contradiction with the case metadata's status field. The metadata describes the case as "jury verdict … damages awarded." ZTE's 2018 Annual Report states that in March 2019 the parties settled and the court approved withdrawal/dismissal, and the docket confirms a Final Judgment entered 3/12/2019 dismissing the action with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs, with the case closed. So the operative end state is a post-verdict settlement and dismissal, not a litigated judgment — relevant if later sections discuss injunctions, enhancement, or appeal. (The verdict itself was rendered against ZTE USA only; ZTE Corp. did not go to trial, per ZTE's annual report.)
2. Firm attribution is time-sensitive. Cunningham and Moore left Pillsbury for Dority & Manning (San Diego) in October 2022; attributions above reflect their affiliation as of the 2018 trial, which is the correct framing for a counsel-of-record question.
3. No attorney-by-patent breakdown. Nothing in the docket or press splits the defense team by patent, so I cannot say which of these attorneys specifically carried the '729 or '493 patents (the two patents in your case metadata). Law.com's team list covers the seven tried patents collectively. This is a real gap given the earlier section's unresolved question about whether the verdict specifically rested on the '729 patent.
4. PTAB counsel not fully verified. ZTE did petition for IPR against Maxell patents (e.g., IPR2018-00235 on U.S. 6,748,317, and the IPR2018-00246 family involving Huawei/Maxell), but I could not confirm from the retrieved materials who signed ZTE's petitions, or whether ZTE challenged the '729 or '493 in an IPR. Maxell's IPR-side lead was Robert G. Pluta (Mayer Brown), with Jamie Beaber as back-up — useful for cross-referencing counsel in the IPR section.
5. Sealed materials. Several filings around trial (e.g., Dkt. 207, sealed exhibits served 6/21/2018) are sealed, but the appearances themselves are public; nothing here required reconstruction from sealed material.

Principal sources: CM/ECF notice-of-electronic-filing service list for No. 5:16-cv-00179-RWS (reflected in docket-alarm document copies, e.g. docs/291/12 and 292/43: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/5--16-cv-00179/); Unified Patents litigation portal docket for 5:16-cv-00179 (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Eastern%20District%20Court/case/5:16-cv-00179); Law.com docket-report summary naming "Callie Bjurstrom, Howard Wisnia, Nicole Cunningham, Steve Moore and Sara O'Connell, and Eric Findlay of Findlay Craft in Tyler, Texas" for the ZTE defense; WIPR via CIP Lawyer, "ZTE to pay Maxell $43m for infringing smartphone patents" (July 4, 2018) (https://www.ciplawyer.com/articles/139509.html); ZTE Corp. 2018 Annual Report (litigation note re Case I, June 29, 2018 verdict and March 2019 settlement); Pillsbury press release on ZTE representations (https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/zte-settles-patent-infringement-case-with-e-watch-inc.html); Findlay Craft attorney bios.