Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Now let me research the plaintiff's identity, litigation campaign, and any IPRs or settlement details.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Plaintiff Local Intelligence, LLC ("LI") is a non-practicing patent monetization entity, not an operating company. Public records identify it as an affiliate of Monument Patent Holdings, LLC, and RPX's later coverage describes Local Intelligence as "an affiliate of Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC" — i.e., it sits within the Dominion Harbor patent‑monetization family (RPX/Mondaq, "Yet Another New Mexico Plaintiff Launches Patent Litigation," May 31, 2024). LI's patents came from TP Lab, Inc., a since‑2004 Silicon Valley R&D shop founded and run by Chi Fai Ho, with the asserted family naming Shin Cheung Simon Chiu as sole inventor. RPX reported in October 2017 that 15 patents were assigned from TP Lab to Local Intelligence, an affiliate of Monument Patent Holdings (RPX News). Defendants HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation are the U.S. sales subsidiary and Taiwanese parent, respectively, of smartphone maker HTC, which was in steep decline in the U.S. market by 2017–2018. The complaint also listed Monument Patent Holdings, LLC as a plaintiff on the docket sheet (govinfo docket metadata); contemporaneous case coverage and the court's opinion treat Local Intelligence as the plaintiff.

The accused technology. LI's November 3, 2017 complaint accused HTC smartphones "released since December 2, 2014 with the Sense 7.0 or higher versions of HTC software, which includes Sense Home and/or Sense Companion features," naming the HTC One M9, HTC 10, and HTC U11 as representative infringing devices (complaint excerpt, RPX Insight). The theory was that the phones use a "location server" to obtain the phone's current location and then refresh the display with location‑relevant content — functionally, HTC's location‑aware home screen/app‑recommendation features.

The patents. The complaint asserted three patents from one family, all titled "Apparatus and Method for Automatically Refreshing a Display of a Telephone," with a June 22, 2006 priority date for the lead patent:

• U.S. 8,903,067 ('067) — filed June 22, 2006, issued December 2, 2014; claim 1 is a telephone with a display panel, a datastore storing a "function" tied to current location plus another user condition, circuitry to reach a location server, and a function selector that refreshes the screen with the mapped communication service.
• U.S. 9,084,084 ('084) — a continuation, filed October 28, 2014, issued July 14, 2015; directed to a conferencing system variant of the same idea.
• U.S. 9,219,982 ('982) — a continuation, filed June 4, 2015, issued December 22, 2015 (the patent carried forward in this case's metadata); claim 1 recites a telephone with a processor that connects to a location server, selects a stored function, and refreshes the screen accordingly.

Procedural posture and venue. Suit was filed in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, as Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America, Inc. et al., No. 5:17-cv-06437-EJD, assigned to Judge Edward J. Davila (with Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen as referral judge) (RPX Insight). Venue mattered both practically (N.D. Cal. was a common target forum for NPE suits against device makers with California distribution and, here, HTC's regional sales activity) and jurisprudentially: N.D. Cal. was among the more receptive districts for §101 challenges, so a complaint surviving there signalled the patents were not trivially invalid. HTC moved to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on January 29, 2018 (Dkt. 27). On April 6, 2018, Judge Davila denied the motion, finding the claims not directed to an abstract idea and expressly relying on Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018), which had held claims to an improved mobile‑device user interface patent‑eligible at Alice step one (order, via govinfo; PatentDocs summary). The court reasoned that the claims "do more than simply state a result (i.e., display communication services according to current location); they also recite the way in which it is accomplished," and found that the "specific improvement to user interfaces claimed here is also not an abstract idea." The case did not reach claim construction: after a settlement reference and an August 10, 2018 order to show cause re settlement, the docket closed on September 26, 2018 (govinfo docket; RPX Insight).

Why the case is notable

• A rare §101 denial at the pleadings stage. Core Wireless issued only in January 2018, and Judge Davila's ruling applied it to deny a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without full claim construction — an early example of the post-Berkheimer/Aatrix reluctance to resolve eligibility on the pleadings. It is frequently cited alongside Core Wireless in the line of "improved user interface" eligibility cases, and it is a useful foil to the many location‑based‑content claims struck down under Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One (which HTC invoked and the court declined to follow).
• A textbook NPE campaign, not a one‑off. LI's first suit (October 2017) targeted Samsung in E.D. Tex. (No. 2:17-cv-00716) over Galaxy S6/S7/S8 phones and their Google Maps "My Places" edge display; the HTC case followed on November 3, 2017; a third suit against LG Electronics was filed in D. Del. (No. 1:18-cv-00271) on February 15, 2018 asserting the '982 and '067 patents (RPX News; Unified Patents docket). The campaign ended quietly: the HTC case closed in September 2018, LG was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on September 5, 2018 before answering, and the Samsung case was dismissed with prejudice in January 2019 — all before claim construction (Mondaq/RPX 2024).
• A re‑monetization coda that gives the case market significance. Local Intelligence transferred its assets back to TP Lab in November 2019, and in 2024 a new New Mexico entity, Lab Technology LLC, asserted the same '982 patent (plus other TP Lab patents) against Samsung (Galaxy Watch6) and Verizon (Care Smart app) in E.D. Tex. (Mondaq/RPX 2024). So the '982 patent — the patent at issue here — remained in circulation long after this case settled, making the HTC eligibility ruling a reference point for subsequent defendants.

Sourcing caveats

• I found no evidence of any IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against the '067, '084, or '982 patents; the case was resolved before any PTAB challenge surfaced. This is a negative finding from my searches rather than a documented absence — a full PTAB docket check should be run to confirm.
• The exact termination mechanism in the HTC case (settlement vs. dismissal) is not spelled out in the docket entries I retrieved; the docket shows a settlement conference referral (Dkt. 30, April 10, 2018) and an order to show cause re settlement (August 10, 2018), with the case closed September 26, 2018, and RPX/Mondaq characterize the family of suits as ending "in the runup to claim construction." I would not state that a public settlement agreement exists without reviewing the docket.
• Counsel for the parties in this N.D. Cal. case is not confirmed in the sources I reviewed; I did not locate a verified attorney‑appearance record for the HTC matter (in the parallel LG case, LI was represented by Stamatios Stamoulis with Nicole D. Galli and Charles P. Goodwin appearing pro hac vice, but I have not confirmed that the same team appeared against HTC).
• The docket sheet lists both Local Intelligence, LLC and Monument Patent Holdings, LLC as plaintiffs; the court's opinion and contemporaneous press treat Local Intelligence as the plaintiff.

I'll research this case thoroughly across multiple sources.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-06437-EJD (N.D. Cal.)

Bottom line up front: This was a short-lived (328-day) patent case that never reached trial, never reached claim construction, and was resolved by settlement/dismissal roughly five months after surviving a § 101 motion to dismiss. The only substantive merits ruling was the April 6, 2018 denial of HTC's motion to dismiss — a decision that turned entirely on the Federal Circuit's then-new Core Wireless precedent and that made this case a small but frequently cited data point in the § 101 "improved user interface" line.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (Nov 2017 – Jan 2018)

• 2017-11-03 — Complaint filed. Local Intelligence, LLC ("LI") sued HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation in N.D. Cal., San Jose Division, Case No. 5:17-cv-06437-EJD (Dkt. 1). Assigned to Judge Edward J. Davila; referred to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen. RPX and the govinfo metadata sheet both confirm the filing date and the "35:271 Patent Infringement" nature of suit. (RPX Insight; govinfo)
• Patents asserted. Contrary to the one-patent framing in the case metadata, LI asserted three patents from the same family: U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,903,067; 9,219,982; and 9,084,084 — all titled "Apparatus and Method for Automatically Refreshing a Display of a Telephone." The '067 was filed 2006-06-22 and issued 2014-12-02; the '084 (filed 2014-10-28, issued 2015-07-14) and '982 (filed 2015-06-04, issued 2015-12-22) are continuations sharing the '067 specification. Sole named inventor: Shin Cheung Simon Chiu; the family originated with TP Lab. (Order Denying MTD at 2; PatentDocs, 2018-04-18)
• Accused products. HTC smartphones shipping with Sense 7.0 or higher software, including the Sense Home and/or Sense Companion features — representative devices: HTC One M9, HTC 10, and HTC U11. (RPX litigation-document excerpt, complaint ¶¶ 17–20)
• Ownership/party note. The govinfo case metadata sheet lists Monument Patent Holdings, LLC as a co-plaintiff alongside Local Intelligence, LLC — consistent with the widely reported fact that Local Intelligence was an affiliate of Dominion Harbor Enterprises, LLC. (govinfo; Mondaq, 2024-05-31)
• Answer / counterclaims. ⚠️ I could not locate a docketed answer or counterclaim in the sources retrieved (PACER full docket was not accessible via search). Given that the case settled within 328 days and closed short of claim construction, it is unlikely that substantive counterclaims (e.g., DJ counts) drove the litigation, but I cannot confirm this from sourced material — treat it as unverified.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

2018-01-29 — HTC's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for patent ineligibility (§ 101), Dkt. 27. HTC argued the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of "providing communication information based on location and other user information," analogizing to Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017). LI responded that the claims recite a specific architecture — a location server (expressly not a GPS positioning system) supplying the current location, and a phone-side datastore storing "functions" — that refreshes the display with location-relevant communication services.

• The hearing set for 2018-04-12 was vacated under Civil L.R. 7-1(b); the court decided the motion on the papers.
• 2018-04-06 — Order denying the motion to dismiss. Judge Davila held the claims were not directed to an abstract idea at Alice step one, relying "almost entirely" on Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018). Key reasoning: both patents-in-suit and Core Wireless "relate to the computer technology of user interfaces," both "purport to solve the same problem … limited display space on electronic devices with small screens," and both "claim a specific manner of solving this problem." The court concluded the claims "do more than simply state a result … they also recite the way in which it is accomplished (i.e., using location retrieved from the location server and functions stored in the datastore)." Because the Core Wireless improvement was not abstract, "the similarly specific improvement to user interfaces claimed here is also not an abstract idea." Finding no abstract idea, the court never reached Alice step two Berkheimer/Aatrix factual issues. (Casemine copy of the order; PatentDocs, 2018-04-18; JD Supra/MBHB)
• Press reaction: Law360, "HTC Can't Get Phone Display Patents Nixed As Abstract" (2018-04-10). (Law360 case page)

No other dispositive motions (transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment) appear in the record. There is no indication HTC moved to transfer venue or to stay, and no summary-judgment practice occurred because the case ended before claim construction.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Never reached. The case was resolved "in the run-up to claim construction." (Mondaq, 2024-05-31) There is no Markman hearing, no claim-construction order, and no joint claim-construction statement reflected in the sources. The only claim-scope discussion is the court's eligibility-stage gloss in the MTD order (it expressly declined to adopt either side's characterization, finding HTC's "too broad" and LI's "too narrow").

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2018-04-10 — Order referring the case to a magistrate judge for a settlement conference (signed by Judge Davila). This is the earliest signal that the court was pushing the parties toward early ADR rather than a litigation track. (govinfo order sheet)
• Beyond that, no docketed discovery disputes, motions to compel, or case-management milestones of strategic significance are reflected in the searchable record. Given the 328-day lifespan, formal fact discovery was almost certainly still in its early stages when the case settled.

5. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. There was no trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial motion, and no fee motion under § 285. The case is listed with zero trial events.

6. Final disposition

• 2018-08-10 — Order to Show Cause re Settlement issued by Judge Davila; OSC hearing set for 2018-10-11, with a show-cause response due 2018-10-01. (This typically follows a settlement notice or a joint statement that the case has resolved.) (govinfo)
• 2018-09-26 — Case closed. RPX records the case as closed 2018-09-26, latest docket entry 2018-09-26. (RPX Insight)
• Disposition: settlement / dismissal. No judgment on the merits, no injunction, no reported damages award. The specific dismissal mechanism (stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a), dismissal with or without prejudice) and any settlement terms are not publicly disclosed and are not confirmed by any source I could retrieve — I would not characterize the dismissal as "with prejudice" for this case without the docket entry. (Note the contrast: the companion Delaware action against LG Electronics was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice before any answer.) (Mondaq, 2024-05-31)
• No appeal. There was no appealable judgment, and no Federal Circuit activity is associated with this case.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

None identified. My searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against U.S. 9,219,982, 8,903,067, or 9,084,084, and no PTAB proceeding involving Local Intelligence as patent owner in connection with the HTC litigation. This is a notable contrast with typical HTC defense strategy (HTC was an active PTAB petitioner in other campaigns) — but I want to be clear this is an absence of evidence finding from the sources retrieved, not a certified negative. If a petition was filed and denied institution, it would not have affected the litigation schedule in any event, since the case resolved without a stay motion.

8. Related/parallel litigation on the '982 patent (context for settlement value)

The '982 patent was part of a small, coordinated Dominion Harbor/Local Intelligence campaign:

• Samsung — E.D. Tex. (believed to be Case No. 2:17-cv-00788 or similar, not confirmed to docket-entry level) and LG Electronics — D. Del., in addition to HTC. Samsung was accused over '982 and emergency-caller-location patents; LGE's Delaware case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice before an answer.
• The California (HTC) and Texas (Samsung) suits both ended in the run-up to claim construction. (Mondaq, 2024-05-31)
• Asset transfer: Local Intelligence transferred its patents back to TP Lab in November 2019, and the family later moved into new asserting entities (e.g., Lab Technology LLC), which as of 2024 were asserting the '982 patent against Samsung (Galaxy Watch-series wearables) and Verizon (Care Smart app), and which by 2026 was filing fresh suits such as Lab Technology LLC v. Solera Holdings (N.D. Tex. 4:26-cv-00297). (Mondaq, 2024-05-31; Ex Parte complaint analysis)

This long tail is relevant to the outcome assessment: the HTC case was one skirmish in a portfolio that was monetized, wound down, and later re-asserted by successor owners — not a case that produced a binding merits ruling on validity or infringement.

---

Sourcing caveats

• The full PACER docket was not directly retrievable via the searches performed; docket-entry numbers beyond Dkt. 1 (complaint) and Dkt. 27 (motion to dismiss) are drawn from the four orders indexed in the govinfo package (2018-04-06 MTD denial; 2018-04-10 settlement-conference referral; 2018-08-10 OSC re settlement) plus RPX's closed-date.
• The answer, counterclaims, discovery events, and the exact dismissal order are not documented in the sources retrieved. I have flagged these rather than reconstruct them.
• No attorney names for either side were confirmed from a reliable source, so I have not listed counsel.
• The 2018-04-06 order citation: I have it as an unreported order (Dkt. 27, N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2018). I could not confirm a Westlaw/F. Supp. 3d citation; it is widely discussed but appears to be an unreported order.

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

I found the complaint signature block. Let me verify the docket counsel and check each attorney's firm/role.

Let me pull the actual docket sheet and related filings to confirm counsel of record.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America, Inc. et al., No. 5:17-cv-06437-EJD (N.D. Cal.)

Case anchor for the entry of appearance: The complaint (Dkt. 1, filed Nov. 3, 2017) was filed on behalf of Local Intelligence by a two-firm team — a Silicon Valley patent boutique acting as lead/local counsel and a Philadelphia IP boutique acting as plaintiff-side trial counsel. Source: complaint signature block reproduced at RPX Insight, Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America, Inc. et al. (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/candce-[319106](/patent/319106)-local-intelligence-v-htc-america) and the N.D. Cal. docket metadata (5:17-cv-06437; assigned Judge Edward J. Davila; referred Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen; closed 9/26/2018) at govinfo (https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06437).

Attorneys named on the complaint

Important caveats / verification gaps

• Source is the complaint signature block, not a PACER docket sheet. I was able to confirm the filing, judge, patents, and closure date (govinfo/RPX), but I could not independently pull the PACER docket text for this case. The names above are those who signed/appeared on the plaintiff's complaint; I have not verified (a) the pro hac vice admission orders for Galli and Goodwin, (b) any substitution, withdrawal, or addition of counsel before the case closed on 9/26/2018, or (c) whether any filing in the case was made under seal. Treat the roster as the plaintiff's counsel as of filing.
• The firm name appears to have changed during the case. The complaint uses "Feinberg Day Alberti & Thompson LLP" (Menlo Park/Palo Alto); the same attorneys later appear under "Feinberg Day Kramer Alberti Lim Tonkovich & Belloli LLP" (Burlingame, CA). I have not confirmed the exact date of the name change or when any notice of firm-name change was filed in this docket.
• Plaintiff's parent/real-party entity. The govinfo package metadata for this case also lists "Monument Patent Holdings, LLC" as a plaintiff alongside Local Intelligence, LLC. That likely reflects a corporate-disclosure/parent reference (Local Intelligence was a Monument-affiliated NPE) rather than separate counsel; I could not confirm whether a separate Rule 7.1 disclosure or a distinct appearance was filed, so I flag it rather than assert it.
• Which patents. Although the case metadata here lists only U.S. 9,219,982, the complaint in No. 5:17-cv-06437 actually asserted three related patents — the '067, the '982, and the '084 (all "Apparatus and Method for Automatically Refreshing a Display of a Telephone") — which matches the April 6, 2018 § 101 denial (Dkt. 27, Order Denying Motion to Dismiss) described in the prior case summary. If you intended a different, '982-only docket, the counsel above may not apply and I'd need to re-check that specific docket sheet.
• No in-house or government counsel appeared for the plaintiff; Local Intelligence is an NPE and litigated exclusively through outside counsel.

Recommended next step for a fully verified roster: pull the PACER docket for 5:17-cv-06437-EJD and check the attorney-appearance entries (Dkt. 1 complaint, any "Notice of Appearance," and the pro hac vice motions/orders for Galli and Goodwin) plus the docket's "Attorneys" tab, which lists counsel of record as of case closure.

I'll research the docket and counsel for HTC America in this case.

Let me look for the docket entries naming defense counsel.

Short answer

I could not verify counsel of record for HTC America in Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-06437-EJD (N.D. Cal.) from the sources I was able to reach. Rather than guess, I'm flagging that explicitly: no attorney name below should be treated as confirmed counsel in this docket. What follows distinguishes (a) verified docket/case facts, (b) a related-case data point that is not the same docket, and (c) exactly where the answer can be confirmed.

---

What I could verify about the case

• Caption/number: Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America, Inc. et al., 5:17-cv-06437 (N.D. Cal., San Jose Division), assigned to Judge Edward J. Davila, referred to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen. Filed 11/03/2017; closed 09/26/2018. (RPX Insight case page; GovInfo case package)
• Defendants of record: HTC America, Inc. and HTC Corporation (collectively "HTC"). Court opinion names both as defendants. (Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 27, Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., No. 5:17-cv-06437-EJD (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2018))
• Key events: motion to dismiss under § 101 filed 1/29/2018 (Dkt. 27); denied 4/6/2018; settlement-conference referral 4/10/2018; order to show cause re settlement 8/10/2018 (response due 10/1/2018, hearing 10/11/2018); case closed 9/26/2018. Court found the claims directed to a "specific improvement to user interfaces," relying on Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (GovInfo orders list; Patent Docs summary)
• Note on the patents: The complaint asserted three patents — U.S. 8,903,067; 9,219,982; and 9,084,084. The case metadata in this matter lists only the '982 patent; the broader family assertion is worth noting for accuracy. (Complaint, Dkt. 1, as reproduced at IP Spotlight PDF)

Why counsel isn't in what I retrieved: the free sources carrying this docket (GovInfo, RPX Insight, Law360 case page, casemine) reproduce opinion text and docket-entry descriptions but not the counsel/appearance entries. The N.D. Cal. § 101 opinion's signature block is the judge's, not counsel's, and the publicly posted copy of the order confirms this. No sealed-filing issue is apparent; the gap is simply that PACER/RECAP appearance data was not surfaced by the searches I ran before hitting my tool limit.

---

Closest verified related data point (different docket — do not attribute to this case)

In a contemporaneous HTC patent case, Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC America, Inc., No. C16-1919 RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the opinion's counsel listing names HTC's defense team as:

Source: Ancora Techs., Inc. v. HTC Am., Inc., 287 F. Supp. 3d 1168 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (counsel listing). This is the Ancora docket, not 5:17-cv-06437. It is offered only as a lead, because HTC tended to use consistent outside counsel across its 2017–2018 patent matters — but I have no confirmation that Knobbe Martens appeared for HTC in the Local Intelligence case.

Separately, I saw no indication of in-house counsel appearing of record in this matter.

---

How to confirm the actual counsel of record

1. PACER docket for 5:17-cv-06437 — look for the Docket Item 1 civil cover sheet, any "Notice of Appearance"/"Certification of Interested Entities or Persons" (N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-15), and the signature blocks on Dkt. 27 (motion to dismiss) and the parties' joint case-management statement. Those entries list the appearing attorneys and firms.
2. CourtListener RECAP docket for 5:17-cv-06437 (docket entry text usually carries the filing attorney name).
3. GovInfo PDFs already posted — order denying motion to dismiss and docket sheet here; if any document in that package was filed by defense counsel, the filer's name appears in the docket text.
4. RPX Insight case page (which tracks plaintiff/defendant law firms and IPR activity) — link.

If you can grant another research pass (or supply the PACER docket text), I'll produce the definitive name/firm/office/role table with docket-entry citations. I'd rather report the gap than populate it with inferred names.