Mesa Digital LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc.

Mesa Digital LLC, the plaintiff, is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) associated with Ortiz & Lopez, PLLC (d/b/a OL PATENTS). They have asserted patent 9,031,537 against numerous defendants in a long-running campaign. The defendant, ZTE (USA) Inc., is the U.S. subsidiary of ZTE Corporation, a Chinese multinational telecommunications equipment and systems company known for its mobile phones and other wireless and IoT products. The accused products are ZTE's wireless handheld multimedia devices, such as smartphones, that incorporate features related to wireless communications over cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth networks.

The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537, titled "Electronic wireless hand held multimedia device," generally covers a wireless handheld device equipped with a microprocessor and multiple wireless transceiver modules. These modules enable communications over various standards, including cellular (e.g., GSM, CDMA, GPRS, 3G), 802.11 (e.g., WLAN), and short-range technologies like Bluetooth, for the retrieval, processing, and delivery of multimedia data from remote resources such as the Internet or servers. The case is being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which is known as one of the busiest intellectual property courts in the country and participates in the Patent Pilot Program, indicating a degree of judicial specialization in patent matters. While the Central District generally does not have its own patent local rules, some judges in the Patent Pilot Program may impose their own procedures, and the court is recognized for its diverse judicial bench and jury pools.

This case is notable due to Mesa Digital LLC's extensive history as an NPE, having asserted the '9031537 patent, among others, against over 75 defendants, including major technology companies like Amazon, Apple, HTC, and LG. Unified Patents, an organization focused on deterring abusive patent litigation, filed an ex parte reexamination against the '9031537 patent in May 2025, which was instituted in June 2025, finding substantial new questions of patentability. This reexamination, while not directly impacting the ongoing district court litigation unless a stay is granted, could significantly influence the patent's enforceability. Additionally, Mesa Digital's litigation strategy has often resulted in cases being dismissed with prejudice, sometimes before a formal defense is mounted, as seen in recent cases against Amazon and Blu Products involving the same patent. The patent's broad claims related to foundational aspects of wireless multimedia devices position it at the core of the mobile device market, making its assertion impactful across the consumer electronics industry.

The case information provided, "Mesa Digital LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc., Case number: 8:23-cv-02159," appears to contain a discrepancy. According to available court records, Case No. 8:23-cv-02159 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California was filed by Mesa Digital, LLC against Red Digital Cinema, LLC, not ZTE (USA) Inc., on November 17, 2023. This case involved the same patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537 (US9031537B2).

There is no readily available public record of a patent infringement litigation titled "Mesa Digital LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc." specifically under case number 8:23-cv-02159 asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537. However, information regarding the Mesa Digital LLC v. Red Digital Cinema, LLC case and other related proceedings involving Mesa Digital LLC and U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537 can be provided, along with relevant PTAB developments.

Key Legal Developments Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537 and Mesa Digital LLC:

1. Mesa Digital LLC v. Red Digital Cinema, LLC (Case No. 8:23-cv-02159, C.D. Cal.)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: Mesa Digital, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Red Digital Cinema, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on November 17, 2023. The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537, which covers electronic wireless handheld media devices.
• Outcome: The case was short-lived. Mesa Digital, LLC filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on January 9, 2024, just 53 days after filing. The dismissal was "without prejudice" as to the asserted patent, meaning Mesa Digital retained the right to refile the same claims against Red Digital Cinema or other parties. Each party bore its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.

2. Parallel PTAB Proceedings (U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537)

• Ex Parte Reexamination Filing: On May 9, 2025, Unified Patents filed an ex parte reexamination proceeding against U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537. Unified Patents identified Mesa Digital LLC as an NPE (Non-Practicing Entity) associated with Ortiz & Lopez, PLLC (d/b/a OL PATENTS).
• Institution of Reexamination: On June 24, 2025, the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) granted Unified Patents' request. The CRU found "substantial new questions of patentability" on the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537. This proceeding is currently active and could impact the enforceability of the patent.

3. Other Assertions of U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537 by Mesa Digital LLC:

• Mesa Digital LLC v. Consumer Cellular, Inc.: Mesa Digital LLC filed a lawsuit against Consumer Cellular, Inc. in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, Midland/Odessa Division, on November 25, 2024, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537.
• Mesa Digital, LLC v. Blu Products, Inc. (Case No. 1:24-cv-25074, S.D. Fla.): Mesa Digital, LLC initiated a patent infringement action against Blu Products, Inc. on December 23, 2024. This case was closed on September 4, 2025, after both parties executed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal was with prejudice as to the asserted patent, meaning Mesa Digital cannot re-assert the patent against Blu Products.
• Mesa Digital v. Ingenico, Corp. (Federal Circuit Appeal): Mesa Digital, LLC appealed a lower-court outcome concerning US9031537B2 against Ingenico, Corp. The appeal was dismissed by the Federal Circuit on November 6, 2024, after Mesa Digital failed to file its opening brief within the permitted time. This dismissal was on procedural grounds, with no merits ruling.

4. ZTE (USA) Inc.'s Past Involvement in IPRs (Unrelated Patent):

While there is no direct connection found for ZTE (USA) Inc. in litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,031,537, ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. were previously involved in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. For instance, in 2014, ZTE filed a petition for IPR against U.S. Patent No. 8,380,244, owned by IPR Licensing, Inc., which was later joined with a Microsoft petition. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all challenged claims of that patent unpatentable, a decision affirmed by the Federal Circuit in part. This demonstrates ZTE's history of utilizing PTAB proceedings to challenge patents.

The case metadata provided, "Mesa Digital LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc., Case number: 8:23-cv-02159," contains a discrepancy. Public court records indicate that Case No. 8:23-cv-02159 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California was filed by Mesa Digital, LLC against Red Digital Cinema, LLC, not ZTE (USA) Inc., on November 17, 2023. There is no readily available public record of a patent infringement litigation titled "Mesa Digital LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc." specifically under case number 8:23-cv-02159.

Based on the actual case, Mesa Digital, LLC v. Red Digital Cinema, LLC, the following counsel represented the plaintiff:

Plaintiff Counsel for Mesa Digital, LLC

• Name: Susan S. Q. Kalra
• Role: Counsel for Plaintiff
• Firm: Ramey LLP
  • Office Location: Further search is needed to confirm the specific office location for Ramey LLP associated with this case.
• Note: Susan S. Q. Kalra is identified as counsel for Mesa Digital, LLC in the Red Digital Cinema case.

While Mesa Digital LLC is generally associated with Ortiz & Lopez, PLLC (d/b/a OL PATENTS), the specific filing for Mesa Digital, LLC v. Red Digital Cinema, LLC lists Ramey LLP as the plaintiff's law firm. Ortiz & Lopez, PLLC (OL PATENTS) is an intellectual property law firm with attorneys registered as U.S. patent attorneys and experience in federal intellectual property litigation, including patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, and IPR matters. Luis M. Ortiz, a partner at Ortiz & Lopez, PLLC, is the sole inventor named on patents from the same family as those asserted by Mesa Digital LLC in other cases.

It is not possible to definitively identify the counsel of record for ZTE (USA) Inc. in Mesa Digital LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-02159, without direct access to the docket for this specific case. However, based on general information about ZTE's patent litigation history and common practices in such cases, certain firms and attorneys have represented ZTE in the past.

For example, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP has represented ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. as lead and back-up counsel in other patent matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Specific attorneys from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP who have represented ZTE include:

• Brian Nash (Back-Up Counsel) - Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Austin, TX.
• Cheng (Jack) Ko (Back-Up Counsel) - Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Diego, CA.
• Howard N. Wisnia (Back-Up Counsel) - Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Diego, CA.
• Steven A. Moore (Counsel) - Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

Additionally, J. Ray Wood is identified as the Chief Patent Counsel for ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc., indicating an in-house role.

Another firm, Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey L.L.P., has also represented ZTE (USA), Inc. in district court and PTAB cases. Attorneys from this firm include:

• Donald L. Jackson (Back-Up Counsel) - Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey L.L.P., Arlington, VA.
• Michael R. Casey (Back-Up Counsel) - Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey L.L.P., Arlington, VA.

It is important to note that without the specific docket for 8:23-cv-02159, these are examples of counsel who have previously represented ZTE in patent litigation and may or may not be involved in the current case.