Maxell, Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al.

I'll research this case across docket sources, court opinions, and industry coverage before writing.

Good foundation. Now let me verify the transfer, the N.D. Cal. track, the PTAB side, and the broader Maxell campaign.

Now the transfer ruling, the N.D. Cal. track, and Maxell's corporate profile.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and outcome, then the PTAB parallel proceedings.

Good, I have a solid skeleton. Let me get the actual docket and key orders.

Now let me pull the full docket text and dig into the key orders.

I'll search multiple angles to find press coverage of this litigation.

Press coverage: thin, and mostly one outlet

Dedicated news coverage of Maxell v. LG is sparse. The only article-length press item I could locate that is specifically about this case is an MLex report published 2025-04-29 (also served at mlex.com), headlined "Maxell, LG give notice of settlement in California patent row." MLex reported that the parties filed a notice with U.S. District Judge Noël Wise of the N.D. Cal. stating that a "prospective" settlement had been reached on Maxell's allegations that LG infringes nine patents "covering a wide range of technology including recording media, imaging devices an[d] information processing," asserted through LG's smartphone, laptop and tablet products. According to MLex, the deal did not resolve LG's § 101 eligibility challenge to four of the patents — Nos. 7,421,188, 10,199,072, 9,818,449 and 6,856,760 — which LG had raised in an October 2024 motion for judgment as a matter of law arguing the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "recording, manipulating, and displaying data"; MLex noted the issue was fully briefed but unruled on, with a hearing set for 2025-05-13. MLex also reported that LG's bid to stay the district court case pending PTAB institution decisions was denied by Judge Wise on 2025-04-25, and that LG had not yet moved to dismiss its seven pending IPR petitions covering the '493, '729, '284, '449, '072, '760 and '188 patents. That article is squarely on the record and contains no damages figure, no settlement amount, and no commentary from either party's counsel.

Coverage of the earlier phases is essentially absent. I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360 newsroom, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF or JD Supra piece on the December 2023 E.D. Tex. filing, on Judge Schroeder's 2024-07-01 order granting LG's § 1404(a) motion to transfer to N.D. Cal., on LG's personal-jurisdiction motion to dismiss, or on the 2025-07-02 dismissal. The venue transfer — which is the most legally interesting event in the case, since it moved a Maxell assertion out of the Eastern District of Texas — appears to have gone unreported in the trade press; I could only confirm it through the docket (Dkt. 30 granted 2024-07-01) and the parties' joint case management statement. Likewise, the termination itself was not covered by any outlet I could find; the stipulated dismissal with prejudice is documented only in the PACER docket (Dkt. 144, filed 2025-06-30; Dkt. 145 closing order, 2025-07-02), and the settlement's terms remain confidential — LG and Maxell filed the agreement under seal as business-confidential information in the parallel IPRs (e.g., IPR2025-00520, LG-1020, with a joint motion to terminate citing the settlement filed 2025-07-01). No damages demand, royalty rate, verdict or settlement number has been publicly reported anywhere I could verify.

Two caveats about sourcing. First, much of what surfaces in searches for this caption is not journalism: litigation-analytics vendors have generated case-summary pages, including PatSnap, which quotes the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal verbatim ("WITH PREJUDICE… Each of the Parties shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees") and editorializes that the mutual cost-bearing clause is "consistent with a commercially negotiated exit," and a companion PatSnap analysis of the transfer. These are database-derived commentary, not reporting, and they differ among themselves on basic dates — PatSnap states the E.D. Tex. case closed 2024-08-09, while another aggregator lists closure on 2024-07-01 — so I would not treat either as authoritative on the record. Second, the broader "why it matters" framing is available only by inference from adjacent MLex items about Maxell's separate campaigns, such as MLex's 2025-05-29 report of a $112 million jury verdict for Maxell against Samsung and its coverage of Maxell's ITC action against Samsung; those pieces do not discuss the LG case, so any claim that the LG settlement was priced off the Samsung outcome would be my inference, not something any outlet reported.

Bottom line for the case file: the press record here consists of a single substantive MLex item, dated seven weeks before dismissal, plus vendor-generated docket summaries. There is no reported damages figure, no reported settlement term, and no executive or analyst commentary on the record. If you need this case characterized in a filing or client memo, the docket and the sealed IPR settlement exhibits are the only reliable sources.

Sources

• Complaint analysis | 5:23-cv-00152 | Maxell Ltd v. LG Electronics Inc | Ex Parte
• Search court records on patent:(8736729)
• because the Office erred in evaluating the references and because evidence presented above warrants reconsideration of said eval...
• Docket Alarm | Litigation Outcomes, Delivered
• Maxell v. LG Electronics | Patent Lawsuit 5:23-cv-00152 - Maxell, Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc.
• Complaint | 5:24-cv-04972 | Maxell Ltd v. LG Electronics Inc | Ex Parte
• #1 in Maxell, Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc. (N.D. Cal., 5:24-cv-04972) – CourtListener.com - Maxell, Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc.
• Search court records on patent:(10199072), page 2 - - All Courts
• Maxell, Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al
• 5:23-cv-00152 | Maxell Ltd v. LG Electronics Inc | Ex Parte
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Maxell, Ltd. v. LG Electronics, Inc.

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel across the docket and related Maxell litigation.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Maxell, Ltd.

Maxell used a two-firm structure throughout: Mayer Brown LLP as national/lead patent counsel (handling the substance, the § 101 briefing, and the parallel IPRs) and Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP as the Texas local-counsel anchor from the E.D. Tex. filing onward. Six Mayer Brown timekeepers and two Patton Tidwell lawyers are recorded on the dockets across the two case numbers; I found no in-house Maxell attorney appearing on either docket.

Lead / national counsel — Mayer Brown LLP

Local counsel — Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP (Marshall / Texarkana, TX)

Cross-checks and flags

• Consistency with the prior sections. The counsel identifiers here match the firm names in the earlier-generated MLex/PatSnap-based sections ("Mayer Brown LLP" and "Patton Tidwell & Culbertson LLP"). One small correction to note: the transfer-order date I can support from the docket is Dkt. 30, 2024-07-01, and the N.D. Cal. case was opened 2024-08-09 — PatSnap's "closed 2024-08-09" for the E.D. Tex. case (flagged in the news section) appears to be an artifact of that opening date, not a closure date.
• Two firms, not one, in the IPRs. Maxell's PTAB counsel of record was Mayer Brown Chicago (Pluta lead; Nicholas H. Ciulla, Reg. No. 78,409, as backup — see the caption blocks on the 2025-07-01 joint motions to terminate, e.g. IPR2025-00519). Ciulla does not appear on the district-court docket in this case; he surfaces only in the later 2026 E.D. Tex. action.
• No in-house appearance in this case. A Maxell in-house lawyer (Tatsuya Koyama) appears on the docket in Maxell v. LG, No. 2:26-cv-00266 (E.D. Tex., filed 2026-04-01) — not in the 2023–25 case. Several other Mayer Brown names that show up in that 2026 matter (Kfir B. Levy, Jamie B. Beaber, Amanda Streff Bonner, Julia Haines, John Dyro, Jr., Alison T. Gelsleichter, Matthew Stanford) are not docket-listed as counsel in 5:23-cv-00152 / 5:24-cv-04972 in the records I could reach; I would not attribute them to this case without a PACER pull.
• Not verified. I did not obtain (a) the N.D. Cal. pro hac vice orders for Maxell's out-of-state Mayer Brown lawyers, (b) a formal "lead counsel" designation in the district court (the N.D. Cal. docket did not appear to contain one — the designation exists only in the PTAB caption blocks), or (c) the firm/office for Grimaldi and Buccigross. Any of those would require a direct PACER docket report (Dkt. 1–l45) rather than the aggregator mirrors I relied on.
• One nuance worth a conflict note. Mayer Brown has separately represented LG Electronics in other patent matters (e.g., ATI Techs. ULC v. LG Electronics; Cellular Commc'ns Equip. v. LG Electronics, E.D. Tex. 2014 — see Pluta's firm bio, and Mayer Brown attorneys appearing for LG as amicus at the Federal Circuit). Nothing in the record suggests a disqualification issue here — LG was represented by Fish & Richardson (McKeon, Ballanco, Schwentker, Riffe, Cannon, Chu, Kalay) plus Gillam & Smith (Melissa Richards Smith) — but it is a fact worth having in the file.

I'll research LG's counsel of record across both dockets.

Strong lead: Fish & Richardson appears as LG's counsel. Let me confirm via the docket and signature pages.

Confirmed Fish & Richardson leads LG's defense. Now let me nail down the full team and any local counsel in each court.

Bottom line

LG's defense in both the E.D. Tex. case and the transferred N.D. Cal. case was handled by Fish & Richardson P.C., with Michael J. McKeon (Washington, D.C.) as lead counsel of record for both LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. The same firm and largely the same team also represented LG as petitioner in the seven parallel IPRs (IPR2025-00392/393/394/444, -518/519/520) and in the earlier Mondis litigation against Maxell's predecessor. I found no separate local counsel for LG in either district and no in-house LG attorney appearing of record on the dockets I could retrieve.

---

Attorneys of record for LG

Sourcing for the roster: the N.D. Cal. docket's attorney/party index as captured by PacerMonitor and UniCourt (which lists the twelve LG-side names above as "Defendant Attorneys"); the E.D. Tex. answer, Dkt. 13, Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint for Patent Infringement (Docket Alarm copy); the N.D. Cal. docket entry for McKeon's notice of appearance (Dkt. 25); and the caption block of Maxell's IPR exhibit identifying "FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. / MICHAEL J. MCKEON (admitted pro hac vice) … Attorneys for Defendants LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc." (Ex. 2002, IPR2025-00393).

---

Court-by-court appearance notes

E.D. Tex. (5:23-cv-00152, before Judge Schroeder). LG answered through Fish & Richardson (Dkt. 13). The E.D. Tex. docket's party index (as captured by Justia and PatSnap) shows the LG side as McKeon, Ballanco and Schwentker. Notably, I found no Texas-local firm appearing for LG in the E.D. Tex. phase — the appearances ran through F&R with pro hac vice admission, rather than through a Texarkana/Marshall local-counsel pairing of the kind usually seen in that district. I could not retrieve a full E.D. Tex. attorney-appearance list (the Justia docket snapshot was last refreshed 2024-02-05, before the transfer), so this point is inference from the available docket data rather than a negative confirmed against PACER.

N.D. Cal. (5:24-cv-04972, before Judges Eumi K. Lee then Noël Wise). McKeon filed a notice of appearance for both LG entities (Dkt. 25), and the remainder of the F&R team appears on the docket index. Ballanco handled the stay briefing (Dkt. 124 motion; Dkt. 125 declaration with IPR exhibits A–H). No local N.D. Cal. counsel was retained — consistent with N.D. Cal. practice, where out-of-district F&R attorneys can appear.

---

Flags and discrepancies you should know about

1. PatSnap misattributes Maxell's local counsel to LG. PatSnap's counsel list for LG includes Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP. That is wrong on the record I retrieved: the E.D. Tex. docket lists Smith (with Mayer Brown's Edward David Johnson, Michael A. Molano, Alan M. Grimaldi and Cliff Allan Maier, plus Patton Tidwell Culbertson's Kelly Tidwell and Geoffrey Patton Culbertson) in Maxell's "Represented By" field, and UniCourt lists her among the plaintiff attorneys. Gillam & Smith is Maxell's East Texas local counsel. Do not carry Smith into an LG-side counsel list.

2. PacerMonitor's index is noisy. It shows a bare "LG Electronics U.S.A." entry and a "Fish & Richardson – Leeron Kalay" duplicate among the represented-by names; these are artifacts of the party/attorney index, not additional attorneys.

3. A date on the Justia docket entry for McKeon's appearance (Dkt. 25) is unreliable. Justia shows "April 24, 2024," which predates the N.D. Cal. complaint (filed 2024-08-09) and therefore cannot be correct for that docket number; treat the filing as real but the date as a transcription/database error.

4. Unverified items. (a) The office locations for Gorham, Kovar, Benedict, Cannon, Cowan, Kuh and Wilson are not stated in the sources I retrieved; I have confirmed only that they are Fish & Richardson. (b) PTAB records for the parallel IPRs list Timothy Riffe as petitioner counsel (see IPR2025-00518); I did not independently verify his firm in this pass, so don't attribute him without a check. (c) No LG in-house lawyer appears in any appearance record I found; the only LG in-house name in the file is Hwi jae Cho, VP and Director of LG's IP Center, who is the addressee of Maxell's 2021 licensing letter attached to the complaint — a business contact, not counsel of record.

5. Post-settlement status of counsel. Nothing in the record I retrieved shows a withdrawal of F&R's appearance. The engagement plainly continued past the district court dismissal: the F&R team filed LG's joint motions to terminate the IPRs due to settlement on 2025-07-01 (e.g., IPR2025-00520), one day before Judge Wise's closing order (Dkt. 145, 2025-07-02). If you need the LG-side signature block on the stipulation of dismissal (Dkt. 144), that document was filed by Maxell's Molano and I have not seen LG's signature page.