Litigation

LG Electronics, Inc. et al. v. Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

terminated (settlement)

IPR2018-00683

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Filed: 2018-02-22

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (2)

Defendants (1)

Δ Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC

Summary

LG Electronics petitioned for IPR of the '655 patent. The proceeding was terminated by settlement.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 7893655-ipr2018-00683 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (2012)
The two-step framework defendants now recite from memory comes from Mayo, not Alice. Mayo is the often-overlooked but doctrinally essential ancestor of every modern § 101 motion.
Cost of Inter Partes Review (IPR): a 2026 breakdown
An IPR ends most cases when the prior art is real. The all-in cost is roughly a tenth of full litigation — but only if you stage it right.
District court vs. PTAB: where to fight a patent challenge
Every defendant who actually fights a patent ends up choosing — sometimes implicitly — between district court invalidity, PTAB IPR, or both in parallel. The trade-offs are not symmetric; the choice often determines the case.
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017)
Pre-TC Heartland, plaintiffs sued in plaintiff-friendly E.D. Tex. by default. Post-TC Heartland, venue is a real defense — and Delaware is where most U.S. patent cases land.
The first 30 days after a patent infringement complaint
Most defendants spend the first 30 days reacting. The defendants who do well spend it sequencing — because every move you make in month one shapes the budget, leverage, and exit options for the next two years.

All resources →