Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics

Proxense, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) and former operating company, has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against LG Electronics, an operating company specializing in consumer electronics and home appliances. Proxense's business model centers on enforcing its patented biometric authentication and wireless communication technology.

The lawsuit, filed in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00302), accuses LG Electronics of infringing multiple patents. Specifically, the complaint targets LG's "Ultra-Small 'Digital Key Module'," which is allegedly developed through LG Innotek's participation in the Car Connectivity Consortium. Additionally, Proxense alleges infringement through the provision of LG Pay on various mobile devices (including LG G7, G8, V35, V40, V50, V60, and Velvet models, and all LG devices released since July 2017) and through LG televisions and laptops that utilize Wi-Fi 6, Wi-Fi 6E, and/or Wi-Fi 7 wireless standards. The patents asserted in this case include U.S. Patent No. 8,036,152, which generally relates to using a timer to switch a wireless transceiver between "active" and "sleep" modes to conserve power. Other patents in the broader campaign against LG and other tech companies relate to securing computing systems with a "personal digital key" and biometric authentication on an "integrated device."

The case is procedurally situated in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, and has been transferred to the docket of United States District Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue has historically been a significant forum for patent litigation, largely due to Judge Albright's past efforts to attract patent plaintiffs and his familiarity with patent cases. The Western District of Texas, along with the Eastern District, remains an important venue for patent disputes, although district-wide random assignment initiated in 2022 has somewhat altered the predictability of judge assignment compared to earlier years when filing in Waco almost guaranteed Judge Albright. The case is notable as part of Proxense's broader enforcement campaign against major tech companies, including past settlements with Samsung, Google, and Intel, and ongoing litigation against Apple and Microsoft, often involving related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO. Judge Albright's prior experience with Proxense's patent portfolio has even been cited as a reason to deny transfer motions in related cases, emphasizing the judicial economy of keeping these cases with a familiar judge.

Proxense, LLC's patent infringement lawsuit against LG Electronics (6:24-cv-00302) is currently active in the Western District of Texas. The case was filed on May 31, 2024.

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments and outcomes:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint for Patent Infringement: Proxense, LLC filed its complaint against LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. on May 31, 2024. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,036,152, among others, focusing on LG's "Ultra-Small 'Digital Key Module'," LG Pay, and LG devices utilizing Wi-Fi 6, 6E, and 7 standards.
• Transfer to Judge Alan D. Albright: On June 4, 2024, the case was transferred to the docket of United States District Judge Alan D. Albright. This transfer was made to facilitate efficient docket management, as Proxense had filed several related cases alleging infringement of the same patents before Judge Albright against other major tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Apple, and Intel.
• Motion for Extension of Time: On December 12, 2025, LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to move, answer, or otherwise respond to Proxense's complaint.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
As of the current date (July 23, 2026), there have been no publicly reported substantive pre-trial motions to dismiss, transfer out of the Western District of Texas (given the initial transfer to Judge Albright), or for summary judgment in this specific case. However, in related cases, Judge Albright has previously denied motions to transfer for convenience, citing judicial economy due to his familiarity with Proxense's patent portfolio.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
The case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage as of the current date. However, Judge Albright has issued claim construction orders in related Proxense cases against Google and Microsoft. A claim construction order was also issued in a past Proxense case against Samsung, also before Judge Albright.

4. Discovery Milestones:
Specific discovery milestones for this particular case are not yet publicly detailed in the available search results.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:
The case is still in its early stages and has not reached trial.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
The case remains active. There is no record of settlement, dismissal, or judgment yet.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
While the U.S. Patent No. 8,036,152 is at issue, there are no specific details in the provided search results about parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings for this patent in relation to this specific case against LG Electronics. However, it's noted that Proxense's broader enforcement campaign against major tech companies often involves related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO.

The plaintiff, Proxense, LLC, is represented by a team of experienced patent litigators.

Lead Counsel:

• Paul J. Hayes (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Patent Litigation Consulting LLC (Andover, MA)
  • Note: Mr. Hayes is a seasoned trial lawyer with decades of experience in patent, trademark, and copyright infringement cases, and trade secret misappropriation. He has secured significant patent verdicts for both plaintiffs and defendants, including a $388 million verdict against Microsoft. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Local Counsel:

• Johnny Ward (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Ward is known for major trial victories in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation. His firm, Ward, Smith & Hill, has a national reputation for high-stakes intellectual property trials and has been recognized by IAM Patent 1000. As of October 1, 2024, he will be ending his trial practice, and the firm will continue under the name Miller Fair Henry.
• Wesley Hill (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Hill is recognized for his courtroom success in patent cases and intellectual property litigation. As of October 1, 2024, he will be ending his trial practice, and the firm will continue under the name Miller Fair Henry.
• Charles Everingham IV (Local Counsel, Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: A former Eastern District magistrate judge, Mr. Everingham brings unique insight into patent litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in various technology industries. He will remain Of Counsel with the firm (Miller Fair Henry) after October 1, 2024.
• Andrea Fair (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Ms. Fair has a national reputation for securing multimillion-dollar verdicts in intellectual property and patent cases, including recent verdicts of $847 million against Verizon and $121.95 million against Amazon. She will become a name partner in the firm, Miller Fair Henry, effective October 1, 2024.

It's important to note that the firm Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, will be undergoing a name change to Miller Fair Henry, effective October 1, 2024, with some partners ending their trial practices while others, including Andrea Fair and Charles Everingham IV, will continue with the renamed firm.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record through docket records, firm announcements, and related Proxense litigation.

Key finding: Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith) appeared for LG in July 2024, and the case is now stayed. Let me dig into the full docket and the stay motion for additional counsel.

Let me pull the full CourtListener docket and the stay motion to see all appearing counsel.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — LG Electronics Inc. & LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.

Bottom line: The public docket for 6:24-cv-00302 discloses exactly one attorney who has formally appeared for the LG defendants — Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, TX), who entered her appearance on July 15, 2024 (Dkt. 6) and has signed every LG filing in the case since. No lead trial counsel, national coordinating counsel, or in-house attorney for LG appears of record in the public docket data I retrieved, and no Answer or substantive response has ever been filed — the case was stayed before LG's response deadline.

Table of counsel of record

Docket support for Ms. Smith's role:

• Dkt. 6 (July 15, 2024) — Notice of Attorney Appearance "by Melissa Richards Smith on behalf of LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc."; the docket text expressly adds her "to party LG Electronics Inc." and "to party LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc." (Justia docket; PACER Monitor).
• Dkt. 24 (Dec. 12, 2025) and Dkt. 25 (Jan. 13, 2026) — unopposed motions to extend LG's deadline to move, answer, or otherwise respond.
• Dkt. 26 (Feb. 13, 2026) — "Joint MOTION to Stay Case PENDING RESOLUTION OF PROXENSE, LLC V. INTEL CORP by LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. … (Smith, Melissa)."
• Dkt. 27 (Feb. 16/17, 2026) — Order granting the stay, Judge Albright. (DocketAlarm; CourtListener docket 68819741)

What is not in the record — stated explicitly

• No pro hac vice admissions are reflected in the public docket snapshots I could access (Justia last pulled July 16, 2024; CourtListener/RECAP and DocketAlarm show a 27-entry docket with no PHV orders). Because LG never answered, it is unsurprising that no national trial team has been admitted yet.
• No in-house LG attorney appears on the docket.
• No sealed appearances are indicated, but I could not review the actual PDFs of Dkts. 24–26 (the joint stay motion's signature block would be the best evidence of any undisclosed co-counsel). Treat the absence of additional names as "not confirmed," not as an affirmative finding that none exist.
• LG's frequent national counsel in other patent matters — Hueston Hennigan LLP (John C. Hueston, Douglas J. Dixon, Alexander C.D. Giza) and H.C. Park & Associates (Alan A. Wright) — appear for LG in a different case (an E.D. Tex. AT&T-related matter, Dkt. 362 in that docket). I found no evidence they have appeared in 6:24-cv-00302, and I am not attributing them here.

Contradictions with the previously generated sections — flagged

1. Stay status (material). The prior "Key legal developments" section states that as of July 23, 2026 there were "no publicly reported substantive pre-trial motions" and no dismissal/judgment. That section omits Dkt. 26/27: the parties jointly moved to stay on Feb. 13, 2026, and Judge Albright stayed the case on Feb. 16, 2026 pending Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corp. The case therefore remains "active" in status but is administratively STAYED (the docket even carries the "STAYED" flag). This also explains why no answer or Markman activity exists.
2. Filing date. The case-overview says filed "July 2024"; the developments section says "May 31, 2024." The docket confirms filed May 31, 2024 (complaint, Dkt. 1). The July date likely reflects the July 15, 2024 first appearance/PACER retrieval.
3. Patents at issue. The case metadata lists only the '152 patent, but the complaint asserts seven patents (8,352,730; 9,298,905; 10,698,989; 9,251,332; 10,469,456; 11,086,979; and 8,036,152). The metadata understates the asserted set.
4. Timeline gap. Because the case is stayed, any future appearance of LG's national/lead counsel will likely follow the Proxense v. Intel resolution or a lift of the stay — a useful trigger to re-check the docket.

Practical note for monitoring: Ms. Smith's filings are the sole record anchor for LG's representation. If you need the complete picture (including any lead counsel working behind the scenes), pull the PDFs of Dkts. 24–26 from PACER, since those signature blocks are the only place undisclosed co-counsel would surface.