Light Guide Innovations, LLC v. Hisense Company Ltd., et al.

Light Guide Innovations, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) and an entity of Anjay Venture Partners LLC, which is reportedly backed by litigation funder Longford Capital Management, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Hisense Company Ltd. and several of its affiliates. Hisense is a Chinese multinational major appliance and electronics manufacturer, widely recognized for its television sets and other consumer electronics. The lawsuit alleges that Hisense's televisions, specifically their LED strips used for display backlighting, infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,267,537. This patent is generally described as relating to a "BACKLIGHT UNIT AND DISPLAY DEVICE HAVING THE SAME."

The case, 2:25-cv-00051-RWS-RSP, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly procedures and accelerated trial schedules, often referred to as a "rocket docket." District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne are assigned to the case. This particular case is a member of a broader litigation effort by Light Guide Innovations, LLC, which has asserted patents from a portfolio originally held by LG Innotek, acquired via Suzhou Lekin Semiconductor Co. Ltd. (d/b/a LEKIN), against multiple major electronics manufacturers including TCL, Walmart (for VIZIO TVs), and Samsung.

A notable aspect of this litigation, and similar cases filed by Light Guide Innovations, is the strategic decision to target foreign affiliates like Hisense Company Ltd. rather than their U.S.-based subsidiaries. This approach is often employed by plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas to circumvent the venue restrictions established by the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision, which limited where patent infringement lawsuits against domestic corporations could be filed. Furthermore, Hisense USA Corp. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01538) against the asserted patent, US 8,267,537, but the institution of the IPR was discretionally denied on January 15, 2026, indicating the patent survived this initial challenge at the PTAB.

Light Guide Innovations, LLC v. Hisense Company Ltd., et al.: Key Legal Developments

Case Number: 2:25-cv-00051-RWS-RSP
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Patents at Issue: 8,267,537

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Light Guide Innovations, LLC against Hisense Company Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co. Ltd. F/K/A Qingdao Hisense Electric Co. Ltd., Hisense International Co. Ltd., Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investments Co. Ltd., and Hisense International (HK) Co. Ltd., is a member case within a larger litigation effort.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: Light Guide Innovations, LLC initiated the lawsuit on January 17, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,267,537.
  • This case is a member case, with Light Guide Innovations LLC v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00312-RWS-RSP, serving as the lead case.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Motion to Transfer/Dismiss: While specific motions to dismiss or transfer for this individual member case are not explicitly detailed in the search results, a broader trend in the Eastern District of Texas involving foreign defendants and personal jurisdiction defenses has been noted. Courts in this district have generally denied motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or to transfer, often applying a "stream of commerce" rationale for global manufacturers. It's also noted that a Markman hearing has occurred in "the Texas case" which could relate to the lead or member cases.
  • Stay Pending IPR: No explicit motion to stay pending IPR was found in the search results for this specific case, though parallel IPR proceedings were initiated by Hisense.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • A Markman hearing has reportedly taken place in "the Texas case" (referring to the litigation in the Eastern District of Texas involving Light Guide Innovations). However, the specific date and outcome of the claim construction for patent 8267537 within case 2:25-cv-00051 are not detailed in the provided search snippets.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • Hisense Defendants' Invalidity and Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions were filed on September 22, 2025, in the lead case (Light Guide Innovations LLC v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 2-25-cv-00312-RWS-RSP), and these contentions are also relevant to this member case.
  • A Docket Control Order (Dkt. 31) for the lead case (2:25-cv-00312-RWS-RSP) was issued on August 4, 2025, which would govern the schedule for both the lead and member cases, including discovery.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • IPR2025-01538: Hisense USA Corp. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2025-01538) challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,267,537 on September 16, 2025.
  • Outcome: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision on January 16, 2026, to not institute IPR2025-01538, citing procedural reasons. This means the patent claims challenged in this IPR were not reviewed on the merits by the PTAB.
  • Hisense USA Corp. also filed other IPRs against Light Guide Innovations LLC for different patents, with several of these also being "Not Instituted - Procedural" on January 16, 2026.

• Current Posture:

  • As of May 16, 2026, the case remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The non-institution of the IPR for the '537 patent by the PTAB suggests that the infringement claims related to this patent will continue to be litigated in district court. Further details on trials, verdicts, settlements, or appeals are not available in the provided snippets.

Light Guide Innovations, LLC is represented by the following counsel:

• Alfred Ross Fabricant
  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied by firm leadership and extensive patent litigation practice).
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note on experience: Fabricant LLP focuses on patent infringement litigation.
• Vincent J. Rubino, III
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note on experience: Identified as counsel for Light Guide Innovations LLC in related PTAB IPR proceedings and district court cases.
• Jacob Daniel Ostling
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, NY.
  • Note on experience: Filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Light Guide Innovations LLC in this case.
• Peter Lambrianakos
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP.
  • Note on experience: Listed as counsel for Light Guide Innovations LLC.

Further attorneys who may be involved as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, based on typical patent litigation practice in the region and mentions in related cases, could include:

• Melissa R. Smith
  • Role: Local Counsel (commonly serves as local counsel in EDTX patent cases).
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, Texas.
  • Note on experience: An experienced trial lawyer in the Eastern District of Texas, she has tried multiple patent cases to verdict for both plaintiffs and defendants and has served as local counsel in thousands of patent cases.
• J. Wesley Hill (formerly of Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC)
  • Role: Local Counsel (often serves as local counsel in EDTX patent cases).
  • Firm: J. Wesley Hill, P.C., Tyler, Texas.
  • Note on experience: An experienced EDTX trial lawyer in patent infringement and other business litigation, he has been counsel of record in over 1100 cases in Texas state and federal courts and has tried more than 30 cases to verdict. He was a name partner at Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, which is known for high-stakes intellectual property trials and frequently assists lawyers nationwide in complex cases before Texas juries.
• Johnny Ward (founding partner)
  • Role: Local Counsel (often involved in EDTX patent cases, though his direct role in this specific case for the plaintiff would need to be confirmed via PACER).
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
  • Note on experience: Has successfully tried numerous complex cases to verdict, including patent infringement, and has secured major courtroom victories against large technology companies.

Please note that while the Fabricant LLP attorneys are directly linked to the plaintiff in this specific case via docket filings, the involvement of local counsel like Melissa R. Smith, J. Wesley Hill, or Johnny Ward is a common practice in the Eastern District of Texas and would typically be reflected in specific appearances on the PACER docket for this case. This information would need to be confirmed through direct access to the docket sheet for 2:25-cv-00051.

While specific attorney appearances for the defendants in Light Guide Innovations, LLC v. Hisense Company Ltd., et al. (Case number: 2:25-cv-00051-RWS-RSP) are not readily available on publicly accessible docket summaries as of May 16, 2026, Hisense Company Ltd. has recently been represented by Perkins Coie LLP and local counsel in a significant patent litigation win in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Based on this strong precedent of representation in the same venue for similar matters, it is highly probable that a similar team from Perkins Coie LLP, along with local counsel, would be representing Hisense in this case.

The following attorneys were identified as representing Hisense and AUO in a "historic patent litigation win" in the Eastern District of Texas, and are therefore likely candidates for counsel of record for Hisense in the current case:

Perkins Coie LLP

• M. Craig Tyler
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred based on "lead trial lawyer" role in previous Hisense case)
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP, Austin, TX
  • Experience: A first-chair trial lawyer with 30 years of experience in complex technology cases, including intellectual property rights, patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade dress, and trade secrets, and achieved a landmark patent litigation win for AUO and Hisense in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Martin E. Gilmore
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP, Austin, TX
  • Experience: Represents clients in patent, trademark, trade dress, trade secret, and unfair competition matters, with successes including obtaining dismissals of patent infringement suits and defending patents in post-grant review proceedings.
• Emily Greb
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI (listed as Office Managing Partner, but was part of Texas-based trial team for Hisense)
  • Experience: Involved in complex intellectual property matters, including patent litigation.
• Tyler Kendrick
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP (office location not specified for this individual in search results, but firm has Austin/Dallas presence)
  • Experience: Member of the trial team that secured a defense verdict for Hisense in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Janice Ta
  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP, Austin, TX
  • Experience: An intellectual property lawyer who helps companies enforce, license, and litigate rights related to patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and copyrights, with experience in semiconductors, Wi-Fi, streaming, networking, and LEDs, and served as a judicial clerk to the Honorable Timothy B. Dyk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Jonathan Tietz
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP (office location not specified for this individual in search results, but firm has Austin/Dallas presence)
  • Experience: Member of the trial team that secured a defense verdict for Hisense in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Homer Hsu
  • Role: Practice Attorney
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP (office location not specified for this individual in search results, but firm has Austin/Dallas presence)
  • Experience: Member of the trial team that secured a defense verdict for Hisense in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Teeanna Brisco
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP (office location not specified for this individual in search results, but firm has Austin/Dallas presence)
  • Experience: Member of the trial team that secured a defense verdict for Hisense in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Helena Burns
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP (office location not specified for this individual in search results, but firm has Austin/Dallas presence)
  • Experience: Member of the trial team that secured a defense verdict for Hisense in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Jessica Delacenserie
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP (office location not specified for this individual in search results, but firm has Austin/Dallas presence)
  • Experience: Member of the trial team that secured a defense verdict for Hisense in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Justin Jiang
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP (office location not specified for this individual in search results, but firm has Austin/Dallas presence)
  • Experience: Member of the trial team that secured a defense verdict for Hisense in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Andrew Kalamarides
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP (office location not specified for this individual in search results, but firm has Austin/Dallas presence)
  • Experience: Member of the trial team that secured a defense verdict for Hisense in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Jaymin Patel
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP (office location not specified for this individual in search results, but firm has Austin/Dallas presence)
  • Experience: Member of the trial team that secured a defense verdict for Hisense in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Riley Zoch
  • Role: Associate
  • Firm & Office Location: Perkins Coie LLP (office location not specified for this individual in search results, but firm has Austin/Dallas presence)
  • Experience: Member of the trial team that secured a defense verdict for Hisense in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.

Local Counsel

• Travis Underwood
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Gilliam & Smith, Tyler, TX
  • Experience: Served as local counsel for Hisense in a patent litigation case in the Eastern District of Texas.