Longitude Licensing Limited et al. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement lawsuit involves plaintiffs Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited, both non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities (PAEs) that are part of the IPValue Management Group. Longitude, based in Dublin, Ireland, specializes in acquiring and monetizing intellectual property, while its affiliate, 138 East LCD Advancements, acquired over 3,500 patents and pending applications, primarily related to LCD technologies, from Seiko Epson Corporation. The defendants are major global consumer electronics manufacturers: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., a leading Chinese producer of LCD, OLED, and flexible displays; LG Electronics, Inc., a South Korean multinational known for televisions, home appliances, and display devices; Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd., a Chinese multinational major appliance and electronics manufacturer with a focus on televisions; and its subsidiary, Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd., which produces smart display terminals including LCD televisions. The accused products are the defendants' liquid crystal display (LCD) products, such as televisions, monitors, laptops, and other display-enabled devices.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, is assigned to District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, and was consolidated with case 2:25-cv-00358. The single asserted patent, U.S. Patent 8319512, generally relates to liquid crystal display (LCD) technology, particularly covering semiconductor devices and methods for configuring pixel electrode orientations in displays. This patent is part of a portfolio that originated from Seiko Epson. The Eastern District of Texas, and Judge Gilstrap's court in particular, is a prominent venue for patent litigation, known for handling a high volume of such cases. A pretrial conference before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne is set for February 8, 2027, with a trial anticipated in April 2027.

This litigation is notable for several reasons. It exemplifies the patent assertion strategies of NPEs like Longitude and 138 East, which acquire patents from operating companies to license and litigate. The defendants are significant players in the global display and consumer electronics market, making any outcome potentially impactful across the industry. Furthermore, the plaintiffs recently secured a substantial $66.9 million jury verdict against BOE Technology Group in a related case (2:23-cv-00515) in the same court for willful infringement of three other LCD patents, demonstrating their prior success with this patent portfolio and strategy. BOE has also initiated Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) against 138 East LCD Advancements, though at least one, IPR2024-00977, was denied institution in December 2024, indicating ongoing defensive challenges.

Ongoing Patent Infringement Litigation: Longitude Licensing Limited et al. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.

Case Number: 2:25-cv-00440-JRG-RSP
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Filed: 2025-04-25
Status: Ongoing
Patents at issue: 8319512 (along with US Patents 7,636,146 and 8,391,020 asserted by plaintiffs)

This patent infringement case, initiated on April 25, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas, involves Plaintiffs Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited against Defendants BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd., and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd.. The case has been consolidated with 2:25-cv-00358 and is currently in the pre-trial phase, with a detailed docket control order guiding its progression.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2025-04-25): Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited filed the complaint, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,636,146; 8,319,512; and 8,391,020.
• Consolidation: The case was consolidated with 2:25-cv-00358.
• Answers and Counterclaims (2025-09-08 and 2025-09-16):
  • Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. filed its Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to the Plaintiffs' Complaint on September 8, 2025.
  • Defendant BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. filed its First Amended Counterclaims on September 16, 2025. BOE Technology's counterclaims include declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity for the asserted patents, as well as claims for tortious interference with a contract and breach of contract related to a BOE-Epson cross-license agreement.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• The Docket Control Order, issued on December 5, 2025, sets deadlines for various substantive motions.
• Motions to Strike Expert Testimony (including Daubert Motions): Due by December 7, 2026.
• Dispositive Motions (including Summary Judgment Motions): Due by December 7, 2026. Responses to these motions are due by December 21, 2026.
• Mediation: The Court has indicated that parties should file a Joint Notice regarding referral for mediation within fourteen days of the issuance of the Court's claim construction order, after which the parties will be "best suited to evaluate whether mediation will benefit the case."

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Claim Construction Hearing: A Markman hearing is scheduled for September 24, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas, before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
• Deadlines for complying with P.R. 4-5(c) (Reply Claim Construction Brief) and P.R. 4-5(d) (Joint Claim Construction Chart) are set for September 3, 2026, and September 10, 2026, respectively.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery and File Motions to Compel Discovery: October 26, 2026.
• Serve Disclosures for Expert Witnesses by the Party with the Burden of Proof: October 26, 2026.
• Serve Disclosures for Rebuttal Expert Witnesses: November 16, 2026.
• Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery: November 30, 2026.

Trial Events:

• Jury Selection: Scheduled for March 15, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas.
• Pretrial Conference: Scheduled for February 8, 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas, before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
• Motions in Limine: Due by January 19, 2027.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently ongoing and has not reached a final disposition.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• The Docket Control Order (Document 56) in the district court case makes reference to IPR2025-01413.
• Another reference to IPR2025-01396 is found in a document within the case (Document 15).
• As of the current date, the specific status and claims challenged for these IPRs concerning US Patent 8319512 are not detailed in the provided search results but their presence is noted in the district court docket.

The following counsel represent the plaintiff(s) Longitude Licensing Limited and 138 East LCD Advancements Limited in this case:

Robins Kaplan LLP (Minneapolis, Minnesota) - Appears to be lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

• Aaron R. Fahrenkrog (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience Note: A trial lawyer handling complex patent cases across various technologies, including semiconductors and computing. Has participated in preparing damage models exceeding a billion dollars and recovered hundreds of millions in patent litigation. Was part of the trial team that secured a $66.9 million jury verdict for Longitude Licensing Ltd. and 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd. in a related case.
• Emily J. Tremblay (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience Note: A patent trial lawyer with over a decade of experience in complex patent issues, representing clients in multi-million-dollar patent litigation across various technologies including computing, display, semiconductor, and medical devices. Was part of the trial team that secured a $66.9 million jury verdict for Longitude Licensing Ltd. and 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd. in a related case.
• Benjamen C. Linden (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property, patent monetization, and patent litigation. Has represented clients in cases involving standard essential patents (SEPs) and contributed to multiple nine-figure outcomes. Was part of the trial team that secured a $66.9 million jury verdict for Longitude Licensing Ltd. and 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd. in a related case.
• Samuel J. LaRoque, Ph.D. (Associate)
  • Firm & Office: Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience Note: Concentrates on intellectual property counseling and patent litigation across a wide range of technologies, including wireless communications, medical devices, and computer hardware. Has contributed to multiple nine-figure outcomes for clients and was part of the trial team that secured a $66.9 million jury verdict for Longitude Licensing Ltd. and 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd. in a related case.
• William R. Jones (Associate)
  • Firm & Office: Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on complex technology and intellectual property litigation, leveraging his background as an economist for patent damages analysis. Was part of the trial team that secured a $66.9 million jury verdict for Longitude Licensing Ltd. and 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd. in a related case.
• Diana Kawka (Associate)
  • Firm & Office: Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Experience Note: An associate attorney in the Intellectual Property & Technology group, advocating for intellectual property owners and leveraging her technical background. Was part of the trial team that secured a $66.9 million jury verdict for Longitude Licensing Ltd. and 138 East LCD Advancements Ltd. in a related case.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, Texas) - Appears to be local counsel for the plaintiffs, specializing in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Garrett Parish (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, Texas.
  • Experience Note: A litigator whose practice primarily involves intellectual property and complex commercial litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. Has assisted teams in more than a dozen trials and recently promoted to partner due to his expertise in patent and commercial litigation.
• Andrea L. Fair (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation and developing trial strategies. Has secured significant jury verdicts in patent litigation, including a $121.95 million verdict against Amazon and a $62.7 million verdict for Solas OLED Ltd. against Samsung.
• Claire Abernathy Henry (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Recognized for her work in intellectual property and patent litigation, and has secured large verdicts in patent cases, including a $62.7 million patent verdict for Solas OLED Ltd. and a $31.5 million verdict for Koninklijke KPN N.V.
• T. John Ward (Of Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Nationally renowned attorney with extensive experience as a trial lawyer and former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, known for high-profile intellectual property litigation. Has secured substantial patent verdicts, including a $62.7 million verdict for Solas OLED Ltd. and a $31.5 million verdict for Koninklijke KPN N.V.

The defendants in Longitude Licensing Limited et al. v. BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al. are represented by several prominent law firms with extensive experience in patent litigation. The legal teams for each defendant are outlined below.

Defendant: BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.

Fish & Richardson P.C. (Lead Counsel)

• Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C., various offices. Fish & Richardson is a national intellectual property law firm with a strong focus on patent litigation, known for handling a high volume of cases in district courts, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, and the PTAB. They have a track record of significant patent trials and are recognized for their technical expertise across various technology areas.
  • Note: While specific attorneys for BOE from Fish & Richardson are not individually listed in the provided docket snippets, the firm is known to represent BOE in patent litigation, including in the Eastern District of Texas.

Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Local Counsel)

• Firm & Office: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas. This firm frequently serves as local counsel in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Defendant: LG Electronics, Inc.

Holland & Knight LLP (Lead Counsel)

• Firm & Office: Holland & Knight LLP, Dallas, Texas and Denver, Colorado.
  • Kristopher L. Reed (Partner)
    • Firm & Office: Holland & Knight LLP, Dallas, Texas. He is listed as counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.
  • Kenneth S. Chang (Partner)
    • Firm & Office: Holland & Knight LLP, Denver, Colorado. He is listed as counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.
  • Edward J. Mayle (Partner)
    • Firm & Office: Holland & Knight LLP, Denver, Colorado. He is listed as counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.

Gillam & Smith LLP (Local Counsel)

• Firm & Office: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, Texas.

  • Melissa Richards Smith (Partner)
    • Firm & Office: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, Texas. She is listed as local counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.

• Note on LG Electronics Experience: LG Electronics has been involved in significant patent litigation, including a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision in which LG prevailed in a dispute arising from a patent license agreement, allowing LG to recover damages based on indemnification obligations to its customers.

Defendants: Hisense Group Holdings Co., Ltd. and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd.

Perkins Coie LLP (Lead Counsel)

• Firm & Office: Perkins Coie LLP, various offices. Perkins Coie has a strong patent litigation practice, with over 120 experienced patent litigators and a focus on high-stakes patent disputes across various technologies. They are recognized for their defense work in patent litigation.
  • Note: While specific attorneys for Hisense from Perkins Coie are not individually listed in the provided docket snippets, the firm has achieved historic patent litigation wins for Hisense in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Gene Lee (Partner)
    • Firm & Office: Perkins Coie LLP. Lee is lead counsel in patent lawsuits involving computer systems and has experience with PTAB reviews and Federal Circuit appeals.
  • James Miller (Partner)
    • Firm & Office: Perkins Coie LLP. Miller has extensive experience representing clients in litigation before U.S. district courts, the PTAB, and the ITC, across various technology backgrounds.

Alston & Bird LLP (Lead Counsel)

• Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, various offices. Alston & Bird has an Intellectual Property Litigation Group of over 80 attorneys dedicated to IP litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement matters. They have a history of successful defense verdicts in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • John D. Haynes (Partner)
    • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP. Haynes is patent litigation counsel for major cellular communications and infrastructure companies, with experience in dozens of patent cases in federal district courts and the ITC involving telecommunication technologies, including successful defense of Ericsson and T-Mobile in the Eastern District of Texas.

Latham & Watkins LLP (Lead Counsel)

• Firm & Office: Latham & Watkins LLP, various offices. Latham & Watkins has a team of over 100 IP litigators with trial-tested experience in cutting-edge pharmaceutical and technology patent disputes. They are known for handling complex, multi-patent, and high-value patent litigation cases and have a strong appellate practice.
  • Note: While specific attorneys for Hisense from Latham & Watkins are not individually listed in the provided docket snippets, the firm is noted for representing major technology companies in patent litigation.

DLA Piper LLP (US) (Lead Counsel)

• Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), various offices. DLA Piper has a global patent practice known for handling major disputes in the consumer electronics and tech sectors. They are recognized for defending clients in numerous US district court cases and managing complex patent matters across jurisdictions.
  • Note: While specific attorneys for Hisense from DLA Piper are not individually listed, the firm has a strong reputation in patent litigation.