Local Intelligence, LLC v. LG Electronics

I'll research this case and its context before drafting.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Plaintiff Local Intelligence, LLC is a Delaware-registered patent-holding entity — a classic NPE/PAE — whose Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure in this case identified its parent as Monument Patent Holdings, LLC, the Texas-based shell-company manager associated with Dominion Harbor Group, LLC (Dominion Harbor CEO David Pridham and president Matthew DelGiorno are the Monument managers per RPX's earlier coverage at insight.rpxcorp.com). Local Intelligence had no operating business; it acquired the asserted TP Lab, Inc. patent family in August 2017 and filed suit against three Android OEMs within roughly six months. Defendants were the Korean parent LG Electronics, Inc. and its U.S. sales subsidiary LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. — operating companies whose accused products sat in LG's then-substantial smartphone business (LG did not exit the handset market until April–July 2021). Local counsel for Local Intelligence was Stamatios Stamoulis (Wilmington), with pro hac vice appearances sought for Nicole D. Galli and Charles P. Goodwin; Morris Nichols partner Karen Pascale entered stipulations for LG, which never filed an answer.

The asserted patents and accused technology. The docket's Form AO-120 report and RPX both record two patents-in-suit — US 9,219,982 and US 8,903,067 — even though the case metadata for this matter lists only the '982 patent; that discrepancy is worth noting. Both belong to the same TP Lab family (earliest priority June 22, 2006; sole named inventor Shin Cheung Simon Chiu; '982 issued December 22, 2015) and share the title concept "Apparatus and Method for Automatically Refreshing a Display of a Telephone." Technically, the claims recite a telephone with a display panel and a "datastore" storing a "function" that links the phone's current location (plus at least one other user condition) to one or more "communication services"; circuitry connects to a location server to obtain the current location, and a "function selector" refreshes the screen with the service mapped to that context — i.e., context-aware, auto-refreshing phone UIs that reduce menu navigation (see the specification discussion in Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-06437-EJD (N.D. Cal.), via casemine.com and patentdocs.org, Apr. 18, 2018). The infringement theory was that LG's Android smartphones query a location source and use that location to refresh displayed services. RPX Insight lists six accused LG products, but I could not verify the specific LG model numbers from the sources retrieved — the complaint's exhibits were not publicly retrievable here, so model-level detail should not be treated as confirmed (the LG G6/V20/V30/G7/V35 models that surface in search results belong to the unrelated Immervision v. LG Delaware litigation, not this case).

Posture, venue and outcome. Filed February 15, 2018, in the District of Delaware, assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews; summons issued February 20 and both LG entities were served February 26, 2018 (answer due March 19). The case never progressed past pleading-stage housekeeping: four successive stipulated extensions of LG's response deadline (to June 18, then July 2, August 1, August 15, and finally September 5, 2018), then a notice of voluntary dismissal filed September 5, 2018 and entered September 6, 2018, closing the case after 204 days with no answer, no motion practice, no scheduling order, and no claim construction (dockets at portal.unifiedpatents.com and insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/dedce-64546). Delaware mattered because in 2018 it was the leading patent plaintiff's venue post-TC Heartland — home to LG's U.S. corporate presence and a bench with deep patent experience — so a Delaware filing against a Korean OEM was the highest-leverage forum choice available to an NPE, and dismissal with prejudice before an answer is the signature of a fast licensing/settlement resolution rather than a merits loss. I found no IPR or other PTAB proceeding against the '982 or '067 patents arising from this case; Unified Patents has challenged other Dominion Harbor-affiliated patents (e.g., Health Watch's 8,460,197, Pure Data's 5,999,947), but nothing tying this patent family to a PTAB challenge was located — that absence is based on negative search results, not a definitive PACER/PTAB docket check.

Why it is notable. The LG suit is one thread of a small, short-lived Dominion Harbor campaign: Local Intelligence also sued HTC (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 3, 2017) and Samsung (E.D. Tex., dismissed with prejudice January 2019, per RPX's May 2024 analysis), then wound down — the HTC and Samsung cases ended on the eve of claim construction, and Local Intelligence transferred its assets back to TP Lab in November 2019. Its main significance in the case law comes from the HTC sibling case, where Judge Edward J. Davila denied HTC's Alice motion to dismiss in April 2018, relying on Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) — so the very Federal Circuit decision that rescued these claims at the pleading stage involved LG as the appellee. That §101 question has since been answered the other way: the '982 patent re-emerged in a 2024–2026 Lab Technology LLC campaign (New Mexico plaintiff, Rabicoff Law), and on July 23, 2026 the District of Delaware held claim 13 of the '982 patent ineligible under Alice and dismissed Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB (D. Del.) with prejudice (Law360/VitalLaw, July 30, 2026). The upshot: this 2018 LG docket is best read as an early, quiet licensing campaign over a patent family whose eligibility was contested at the time and has since been invalidated in the same district — and as a data point on how quickly well-resourced OEM defendants can clear NPE suits through non-public resolution.

I'll research the procedural history and legal developments in this case, building on the prior sections.

Let me dig into whether the patents were subject to any PTAB proceedings and get the full docket timeline.

Let me get the full docket from additional sources and check for any PTAB proceedings on the '982 patent specifically.

I've gathered the docket-level detail. Here is the chronological legal-developments section, building on the existing overview and counsel sections (and flagging a couple of refinements to the earlier timeline).

---

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — Local Intelligence, LLC v. LG Electronics (1:18-cv-00271-RGA, D. Del.)

Threshold point: This was a pleading-stage-only case. There is no answer, no counterclaim, no substantive pre-trial motion, no Markman proceeding, no discovery of record, no trial, and no judgment on the merits. The entire "legal developments" timeline is the complaint, a pro hac vice motion, six stipulated extensions, and a notice of voluntary dismissal. Everything below is sourced from the D. Del. docket mirrors (Unified Patents litigation portal, RPX Insight) unless noted. Because the case never left the pleadings, there is very little court-authored law to report — the doctrinal significance of this patent family comes from sibling and successor cases, addressed at the end.

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2018-02-15 → 2018-02-27)

• 2018-02-15 — Complaint filed. "COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT filed with Jury Demand against LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics, Inc. … filed by Local Intelligence, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)," filing fee $400 (Unified Patents docket mirror). So this was a jury-demanded complaint with three exhibits (presumably the patents/claim charts) — not a bench complaint.
• Same day — Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks listing "US 9,219,982 B2; US 8,903,067 B2." This is the docket-entry confirmation of the metadata discrepancy already flagged in the overview: the complaint asserted two patents, while the case metadata lists only the '982 patent.
• 2018-02-20 — Summons issued as to both LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Electronics, Inc. (with Magistrate Consent Notice).
• 2018-02-22 — Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Nicole D. Galli and Charles P. Goodwin filed by local counsel Stamatios Stamoulis (per the counsel section).
• 2018-02-26 — Service on both defendants ("SUMMONS Returned Executed … LG Electronics, Inc. served on 2/26/2018, answer due 3/19/2018"; same for LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.).
• 2018-02-27 — Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying Monument Patent Holdings, LLC as corporate parent. No answer or Rule 12 motion was ever filed by LG; no counterclaims (declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement) ever appear on the docket.

Refinement to the earlier sections: The counsel/overview sections said "four successive stipulated extensions" and listed five deadlines. The docket mirror actually shows six stipulations (adding an August 29, 2018 deadline). See below.

2. The only pre-trial activity: six stipulated extensions (2018-03 → 2018-08)

Letter-of-the-docket timeline of the response-deadline stipulations:

Strategic significance. Six consecutive agreed extensions — pushing LG's response ~5.5 months past the March 19 answer date — is the classic signature of active settlement/licensing negotiation running in parallel with the litigation clock, with both sides content to keep the case in stasis. There is no motion to transfer, motion to dismiss, motion to stay pending IPR, or summary-judgment motion on the docket — none was ever filed. LG chose not to test venue post-TC Heartland or to move on §101 at the pleadings stage; it simply bought time.

3. No Markman, no discovery milestones

Because LG never answered, the case never reached a scheduling order, Rule 26(f) conference, initial disclosures, claim-construction exchange, Markman hearing, or any discovery. Nothing in the docket mirrors shows a protective order, ESI order, or discovery dispute. This matters analytically: the §101 invalidity question that dominated the sibling HTC case was never joined here — LG never had to litigate eligibility in Delaware, and Local Intelligence never had to defend it in this docket.

4. Final disposition: voluntary dismissal (2018-09-05/06)

• 2018-09-05 — "NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Local Intelligence, LLC as to LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Electronics Inc." (Stamoulis). Entered 2018-09-06; the docket mirror shows the dismissal notice filed together with the closing entry "(# 1 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal)(nms) (Entered: 09/06/2018)."
• Case closed 2018-09-06, 204 days in litigation, per RPX Insight.
• "With prejudice" caveat: Your case metadata records the dismissal as with prejudice (and the overview repeats this), but the docket-mirror text I retrieved says only "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal" and does not quote a "with prejudice" recital. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a notice of dismissal filed before the defendant answers is presumptively without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise. Since this notice was filed before any answer, the "with prejudice" characterization depends on language in the notice itself that I could not read in full. Treat "with prejudice" as reported-but-not-directly-verified here; a PACER pull of the D.I. notice would settle it. If it was with prejudice, it is strong evidence of a paid settlement with a covenant not to sue; if it was without prejudice, it is closer to a strategic retreat (which would be consistent with the family's later re-assertion by Lab Technology).

5. No parallel PTAB (IPR/PGR/CBM) proceedings on the asserted patents

My searches located no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition against US 9,219,982 or US 8,903,067 — not against LG, not against Local Intelligence, not in the HTC or Samsung matters. This is consistent with the overview's finding, and it is a negative-search result, not a certified PTAB docket check (I did not retrieve the PTAB Patent Trial & Appeal Board "Patent Number" search results page directly before hitting my search limits). Practically: no IPR ever stayed or influenced this litigation, because none existed. That is itself notable — an NPE campaign against a well-resourced OEM with an obvious §102/§103 and §101 vulnerability that was not met with a PTAB challenge suggests either (a) quick confidential resolution before a petition was prepared, or (b) that the family's eligibility/prior-art exposure made settlement cheaper than an IPR for the defendants. I cannot verify which on this record.

6. Related proceedings that supply the doctrinal substance

Because the Delaware docket has no substantive rulings, the legal significance of the '982/'067 family comes from these parallel and successor matters:

• *Sibling case — Local Intelligence, LLC v. HTC America, Inc., No. 5:17-cv-06437-EJD (N.D. Cal.)* (filed 2017-11-03; asserted the '067, '982, and '084 patents; closed 2018-09-26, after only 328 days). 2018-04-06 — Judge Edward J. Davila denied HTC's §101 motion to dismiss, holding the claims "not … directed toward an abstract idea" and expressly relying on Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Patently-O/Patent Docs, 2018-04-18; casemine; docketreport). This is the single most important legal development touching the '982 patent during the 2018 window — and it is the only ruling that ever validated these claims against an Alice challenge; a subsequent Delaware court reached the opposite result (below). Note the symmetry the overview flagged: the controlling Federal Circuit authority (Core Wireless) had LG as the appellee, so the very precedent that saved Local Intelligence's claims in California had been won by LG's own appellate counsel.
• Samsung action (E.D. Tex.) — per RPX's analysis, dismissed with prejudice January 2019. I could not independently pull the E.D. Tex. docket before my search limits; cite it as RPX-sourced.
• *Successor campaign — Lab Technology LLC v. Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01356-JCB (D. Del.)* (Lab Technology owns the '982 patent; asserted claim 13 against Greenlight's "Kids & Teen Banking App"). 2026-07-23 — the District of Delaware held claim 13 ineligible under Alice step one and step two and dismissed with prejudice, denying leave to amend as futile (Law360/VitalLaw, 2026-07-30; IP Law Daily). The court rejected Greenlight's prosecution-disclaimer argument (the applicant had distinguished a remote "location server" from self-contained tracking in the prior art) but found the claims "merely … filtering content on a set of generic computer components." This 2026 ruling is, as of today's date (2026-10-14), the last word on the '982 patent's validity in the same district that hosted the LG case — and it squarely contradicts the 2018 HTC eligibility denial. It converts the '982 patent from "survived Alice at the pleadings stage" to "held invalid on the merits" in Delaware.
• Ownership trajectory. Local Intelligence transferred the family back to TP Lab, Inc. in November 2019 (per the overview), which is the bridge from the 2018 Dominion Harbor/Local Intelligence campaign to the 2024–2026 Lab Technology campaign.

7. Bottom line on "legal developments"

For this case, the complete substantive record is: a two-patent, two-defendant jury complaint (2018-02-15) → PHV motion (2018-02-22) → six agreed extensions (2018-03 → 2018-08) → voluntary dismissal before answer (filed 2018-09-05, entered 2018-09-06, day 204). No motion of substance, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no judgment, no appeal, and no PTAB proceeding. The case's litigation significance is almost entirely contextual: it is one leg of a short-lived three-front Dominion Harbor campaign, and the patent it asserted was (i) upheld at the pleadings stage in the N.D. Cal. HTC suit in 2018 and (ii) invalidated under §101 in D. Del. in 2026.

Verification items a PACER/PTAB pull should confirm: (1) the exact "with prejudice" recital (or absence) in the D.I. voluntary-dismissal notice; (2) the D.I. numbers for the six stipulations and whether any received a "SO ORDERED" endorsement; (3) a checked (not merely negative-search) PTAB docket for the '982 and '067 patents; and (4) the E.D. Tex. Samsung disposition date/terms. I could not retrieve these directly.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff, Local Intelligence, LLC, in this D. Del. case.

I found the key docket entries. Now let me research each attorney.

Now let me research Charles P. Goodwin and confirm the local counsel details.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Local Intelligence, LLC v. LG Electronics, 1:18-cv-00271 (D. Del.)

Sourcing note up front: This case was short-lived — filed 2/15/2018, closed 9/6/2018 (204 days), voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on 9/5/2018 before any defendant answered. The docket is thin, so the counsel roster comes primarily from the pro hac vice motion and the voluntary dismissal notice themselves, plus firm/attorney directories. I could not retrieve the PACER docket sheet or the order granting the PHV motion directly; where a detail is unverified I say so.

The three attorneys who appear for plaintiff

---

1. Nicole D. Galli — lead counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/office: Founder and Managing Member, ND Galli Law LLC, One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600, Philadelphia, PA (second office at 136 Madison Ave., New York).
• Appearance in this case: Named in plaintiff's Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Nicole D. Galli and Charles P. Goodwin, filed by local counsel Stamatios Stamoulis on 2/22/2018 (docket entry per the Unified Patents/Local Intelligence docket extract). The motion was filed one week after the complaint — i.e., she was a member of the team from the outset, not a later substitution.
• Experience: 30+ years of IP and commercial litigation; University of Pennsylvania J.D. (1992). Spent over two decades at AmLaw 100 firms — including Pepper Hamilton LLP (Philadelphia), where she chaired the Patent Litigation Practice Group — before founding her own firm in 2015. Admitted in PA, NJ, NY, and Delaware (inactive), plus the Third and Federal Circuits and the District of Delaware. Chambers USA–ranked (Intellectual Property – Pennsylvania, 2024); Best Lawyers in Patent Law, IP Litigation, and Commercial Litigation (2021–2025); IAM Strategy 300 (2019); long-time Pennsylvania Super Lawyer. Founding member of Sedona Conference Working Group 12 on Trade Secrets.
• Relevant to this matter: Her practice explicitly includes IP "monetization" and enforcement counseling — consistent with a campaign-style patent assertion docket.

2. Charles P. Goodwin — counsel for plaintiff (pro hac vice)

• Appearance in this case: Named alongside Galli in the same 2/22/2018 pro hac vice motion, so he too was plaintiff-side counsel of record from the start.
• Firm/office: Law360's attorney profile lists Charles P. Goodwin at ND Galli Law LLC, Philadelphia, PA. ⚠️ Caveat: the Law360 "cases" tab for him shows matters from 2020 onward (e.g., Social Finance, LLC v. Carricarte IP Licensing, LLC, E.D. Pa. 2025; Logicalis, Inc. v. Centergrid, LLC, E.D. Mich. 2021; Elmagin Capital, LLC v. Chen, E.D. Pa. 2020). I could not independently confirm via a contemporaneous 2018 source that he was already at ND Galli at the time of this filing, and I found no case-specific firm letterhead for him. Treat his 2018 firm affiliation as probable but not fully verified.
• Experience: Thinner public record than Galli's — his docketed work skews to IP-adjacent matters (a Defend Trade Secrets Act case, an N.D. Cal./E.D. Pa. patent case, and miscellaneous statutory actions) as a member of Galli's boutique. Do not overstate his standalone trial record; I found none.
• Search caution: There is a different lawyer, Charles B. Goodwin (Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City) with an extensive commercial/appellate practice. He is not this attorney — different middle initial, firm, and bar. Don't conflate them.

3. Stamatios Stamoulis — Delaware local counsel

• Appearance in this case: The ECF signature on the plaintiff's substantive filings. He filed the pro hac vice motion on 2/22/2018 and, critically, the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on 9/5/2018 (docketed 9/6/2018), which ended the case. Because Local Intelligence is a non-Delaware entity using a Philadelphia-based lead firm, Stamoulis's role was the classic D. Del. local-counsel function: pro hac vice sponsorship, ECF signature, and service/stipulation practice.
• Firm/office: I was able to confirm him as a Delaware patent-bar regular but could not independently verify his 2018 firm name through the searches available to me (Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE, is the firm associated with him in this era, but treat that as unconfirmed rather than established). ⚠️ Flagged as not well-sourced.
• Experience: Frequent D. Del. local counsel in patent and other IP matters; a known practitioner to this court's IP bar.

---

What is not in the record

• No in-house counsel appeared. Nothing in the available docket extract shows a Local Intelligence employee-attorney on the pleadings.
• No counsel for defendants is addressed here, per the scope of your question — but for context, LG was represented by Karen Pascale on the Delaware side (she signed the four successive stipulations extending LG's response deadline from March through September 2018).
• No sealed filings surfaced in the available docket extract; the case is too short for protective-order practice. Nothing here suggests counsel identity was sealed.
• PHV granting order: I could not retrieve the order adjudicating the 2/22/2018 pro hac vice motion. Since the case closed six months later with filings signed by both the local and PHV-side attorneys, admission in substance clearly occurred, but I will not cite a specific order date I could not read.

Ownership context worth noting for your counsel analysis

The Rule 7.1 disclosure identified Monument Patent Holdings, LLC as Local Intelligence's corporate parent. That parent-NPE structure — plus the filing of a second patent (US 8,903,067) alongside the '982 patent named in your case metadata (the "Report to the Commissioner" entry lists both) — is why the case names a boutique monetization-focused firm rather than a general-practice shop. The metadata's single-patent framing understates the complaint, which asserted two patents against two LG entities.

Bottom line

Lead: Nicole D. Galli (ND Galli Law LLC, Philadelphia) — pro hac vice, IP monetization/litigation specialist, ex-Pepper Hamilton patent litigation chair. Second chair/co-counsel PHV: Charles P. Goodwin (probable ND Galli affiliate; 2018 affiliation unverified). Delaware local counsel: Stamatios Stamoulis (firm name unverified). All three signed or were named in plaintiff's filings; no in-house counsel appeared.

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

Counsel of Record — Defendant LG Electronics (1:18-cv-00271-RGA, D. Del.)

Bottom line: The only defense-side attorney who appears on the public docket in this case is Karen L. Pascale of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP (Wilmington, Delaware), acting as Delaware/local counsel for LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Electronics, Inc. No out-of-state "lead" or "of counsel" attorney entered an appearance, and no pro hac vice motion was filed on LG's behalf, because the case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice before LG ever answered or moved — consistent with the existing case summary.

Attorney identified

Basis: Every defense-side filing indexed on the public dockets — the successive stipulations to extend LG's time to answer/move (filed roughly March–August 2018, ultimately pushing the response deadline to September 5, 2018) — is attributed to "(Pascale, Karen)" on behalf of "LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics, Inc." See the docket mirror at Unified Patents' litigation portal (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1:18-cv-00271) and RPX Insight (https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/dedce-64546-local-intelligence-v-lg-electronics). Her firm and direct dial match Young Conaway's Delaware IP group (302-571-6600), confirmed by her counsel listing and appearances in other D. Del. patent dockets.

What I could not confirm (explicitly)

• No formal Notice of Appearance for LG appears in the docket excerpts I could retrieve. The aggregator dockets are truncated ("…"), so I cannot rule out that a Rule 83.5 notice of appearance by Ms. Pascale was separately filed; the stipulations themselves are the filings that establish her representation. I am not going to assert a docket-entry number for an appearance I did not see.
• No national/lead trial counsel. If LG retained outside litigation counsel from a national IP firm in 2018, that attorney never appeared in this docket (no § 83.5(c) pro hac vice motion, no answer, no motion to dismiss). The case closed with plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal filed by plaintiff's local counsel, Stamatios Stamoulis (Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC), on September 5, 2018 (entered September 6, 2018).
• No in-house counsel is identified anywhere in the public record for this matter.
• PACER's full docket is paywalled and I did not have direct PACER access; my account rests on the Unified Patents and RPX docket mirrors. If you need a certified counsel list, pull the PACER docket sheet for 1:18-cv-00271-RGA and confirm the D.I. numbers for the stipulations.

I have deliberately named only the attorney the public record actually supports. I did not find, and therefore am not listing, any other defense-side attorney for LG in this case.