Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. Innolux Corporation

This patent infringement litigation, Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. Innolux Corporation, involved plaintiff Phenix Longhorn, LLC, identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) focused on patent licensing in the consumer and industrial electronics markets. The defendant, Innolux Corporation, is a major Taiwanese operating company that researches, develops, designs, manufactures, and sells TFT-LCD panels, modules, and monitors for various applications globally. The lawsuit accused Innolux of infringing two U.S. patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,557,788 and U.S. Patent No. 7,233,305. Both patents relate to display technology, specifically a "Gamma Reference Voltage Generator" which is a programmable buffer integrated circuit designed to output gamma correction reference voltages for Liquid Crystal Displays (LCDs) to improve color fidelity. The allegedly infringing products were display panels, including those found in various branded displays such as Samsung, Haier, JVC, RCA, Sanyo, and Toshiba.

The case was filed on October 10, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, bearing case number 2:23-cv-00478. District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne were assigned to the case. The Eastern District of Texas is a historically significant and plaintiff-friendly venue for patent litigation, particularly favored by NPEs, known for its expertise in patent cases and commitment to timely trials. The litigation concluded on January 5, 2026, with a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal by the parties, which commonly suggests that a settlement or licensing agreement was reached.

This case is notable due to Phenix Longhorn's established pattern as an NPE asserting patents to target display panel supply chains. By asserting against a major panel supplier like Innolux, rather than numerous individual OEM brands, Phenix Longhorn employed an upstream assertion strategy. Such a strategy, if successful, can create significant licensing leverage across a broad range of downstream products. Furthermore, Innolux Corporation filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against Phenix Longhorn LLC for the patents in suit (IPR2025-00043 for U.S. Patent No. 7,233,305 and IPR2025-00044 for U.S. Patent No. 7,557,788), indicating a parallel challenge to the patents' validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

This patent infringement litigation, Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. Innolux Corporation, proceeded through several key stages before its dismissal.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2023-10-10): Phenix Longhorn, LLC initiated the lawsuit against Innolux Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. An amended complaint was subsequently filed.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Docket Control Order (2024-10-21): A Docket Control Order was signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. This order scheduled a Markman hearing for August 7, 2025, a Pretrial Conference for January 13, 2026, and Jury Selection for February 17, 2026.
• Motions for Extension of Time: The parties filed joint motions for extensions of time related to filing a proposed protective order and complying with discovery orders, as well as an unopposed motion for extension of time for Innolux to respond to the amended complaint.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• While a Markman hearing was scheduled for August 7, 2025, the case was dismissed before it could occur.

Discovery Milestones:

• A Scheduling Conference was held on September 27, 2024, where counsel for both parties appeared. The parties were instructed to meet and confer regarding changes to the proposed docket control and discovery orders and to submit the proposed orders within fourteen days. Deadlines in the original notice for the scheduling conference were set to run from this date.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case was dismissed before reaching trial. Jury selection had been set for February 17, 2026.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal (2026-01-05): The case was terminated following a Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal by the parties, which generally indicates a settlement or licensing agreement was reached.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-00043 (U.S. Patent No. 7,233,305): Innolux Corporation filed an Inter Partes Review petition against U.S. Patent No. 7,233,305. On May 15, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) not to institute the inter partes review, primarily citing the Fintiv factors. The Board noted that no motion for a stay of the district court litigation had been filed, though Innolux indicated an intent to file one upon institution of the IPR. Phenix Longhorn had argued that a stay motion would likely be denied even post-institution. Despite the discretionary denial of institution, this IPR was later formally terminated due to settlement after institution of trial, with a document filing date of May 11, 2026. This implies a subsequent change in status or a re-evaluation given the overall settlement of the district court case.
• IPR2025-00044 (U.S. Patent No. 7,557,788): Innolux Corporation also filed an IPR petition against U.S. Patent No. 7,557,788. While the initial outcome of IPR2025-00044 is not explicitly detailed in the search results, given the parallel IPR2025-00043 and the overall settlement of the district court case, it is highly probable this IPR also concluded without a full merits decision due to the settlement. The USPTO's Open Data Portal for Trial Decisions indicates that IPR2025-00043 was terminated-settled.

Phenix Longhorn, LLC was represented by several attorneys from different firms.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for the plaintiff:

• Samuel F. Baxter (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: McKool Smith P.C., Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience: A highly regarded trial lawyer in patent infringement disputes, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas. He has secured numerous eight and nine-figure jury verdicts for plaintiffs in patent cases, including against major technology companies like Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Samsung. Baxter has been recognized as one of Law360's "Trial Aces" and "Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America." Note: While historically a key figure in this case type, recent reports indicate Samuel Baxter retired from McKool Smith in early May 2026 after over fifty years in the legal profession.

• Daniel Scardino (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Scardino LLP, Austin, Texas.
  • Experience: Daniel Scardino focuses primarily on federal court intellectual property litigation. He has acted as lead lawyer in dozens of patent lawsuits and has secured recoveries for clients exceeding $150 million, including a nearly $25 million victory against Apple in federal court.

• D. Scot Hill (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry), Longview, Texas.
  • Experience: Scot Hill is recognized for his courtroom success in patent cases and intellectual property litigation. His firm, Ward, Smith & Hill, has a national reputation in high-stakes claims, including intellectual property law, and frequently assists lawyers nationwide in complex cases before Texas juries. Note: Effective October 1, 2024, Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, underwent a name change to Miller Fair Henry, with Johnny Ward, Wesley Hill, and Bruce Smith ending their trial practices, though Wesley Hill remains recognized for IP and patent litigation.

• Eric Hugh Findlay (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Findlay Craft P.C.
  • Experience: Eric Findlay has made appearances representing the plaintiff in scheduling conferences. His firm, Findlay Craft, has been listed in relation to other Phenix Longhorn cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Steven Mark Levitan (Counsel)

  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in current search results, but associated with Womble Bond Dickinson in general IP searches)
  • Experience: Listed as counsel for Phenix Longhorn, LLC.

• Fabio E. Marino (Counsel)

  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in current search results, but associated with Womble Bond Dickinson in general IP searches)
  • Experience: Listed as counsel for Phenix Longhorn, LLC.

• Rodney R. Miller (Counsel)

  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in current search results, but associated with Womble Bond Dickinson in general IP searches)
  • Experience: Listed as counsel for Phenix Longhorn, LLC.

• John Horton Wright, III (Counsel)

  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in current search results)
  • Experience: Listed as counsel for Phenix Longhorn, LLC in this case and a related case against AU Optronics.

• Katherine Lange Johnson (Counsel)

  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in current search results)
  • Experience: Listed as counsel for Phenix Longhorn, LLC.

• Daniel Attaway (Counsel)

  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in current search results)
  • Experience: Listed as counsel for Phenix Longhorn, LLC.

Here is the counsel of record representing Innolux Corporation in Phenix Longhorn, LLC v. Innolux Corporation:

Robert J. Benson

• Role: Lead Counsel, Partner
• Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P.
• Office Location: San Francisco, CA (also associated with Orange County, CA)
• Relevant patent litigation experience: Robert Benson focuses his practice on representing Taiwanese companies in high-stakes U.S. patent disputes, including district court litigation, International Trade Commission (ITC) investigations, and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) post-grant proceedings. He has a long track record of successfully representing both plaintiffs and defendants in patent litigation, particularly concerning display components like LCD panels. He has secured dismissals with prejudice and without settlement payments in multiple patent infringement actions brought by non-practicing entities.

Jeffrey Lance Johnson

• Role: Lead Counsel, Partner
• Firm: Baker Botts L.L.P.
• Office Location: Houston, TX
• Relevant patent litigation experience: Jeffrey Johnson is known as a first-class litigator in the Eastern District of Texas, specializing in complex commercial and intellectual property litigation for high-tech, energy, and life sciences industries. With a Ph.D. in chemistry and engineering, he brings a strong technical understanding to patent disputes involving technologies such as semiconductor technology, integrated circuits, and internet protocols. He handles all litigation aspects, from discovery to Markman hearings and trials. He was also involved as petitioner counsel for Innolux in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding against Phenix Longhorn.

Melissa Richards Smith

• Role: Local Counsel, Partner
• Firm: Gillam & Smith, L.L.P.
• Office Location: Marshall, TX (also Tyler, TX)
• Relevant patent litigation experience: Melissa Richards Smith is an experienced trial lawyer in the Eastern District of Texas, handling lawsuits for both plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal courts. She has a notable record of trying multiple patent cases to verdict, resulting in non-infringement and invalidity findings. She is frequently retained as local counsel for patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas, having served in this capacity for over three thousand patent cases, and is recognized by Fortune 500 companies for her intellectual property expertise. She was the most active attorney representing defendants in patent cases from 2021 to 2024, according to Lex Machina reports.