Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting.

Let me dig deeper into the specifics.

Case Overview: Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00302-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Parties and posture. Proxense, LLC is a Bend, Oregon–based entity founded in 2001 that spent roughly 2004–2012 developing biometric "Personal Data Key" (PDK) authentication and proximity-based mobile payment technology, but which today operates as a non-practicing entity (NPE/PAE) running a broad enforcement campaign off a portfolio Proxense has described as ~65 digital-key patents (ip fray, Jan. 14, 2025; RPX Insight). Its CEO is John Giobbi, a named inventor on the asserted family. Proxense filed this suit on May 31, 2024 against LG Electronics Inc. (Korea) and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., asserting willful infringement of seven patents; the case was initially assigned to Judge Kathleen Cardone and reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright on June 4, 2024 (Dkt. 5), and sits in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. LG is represented by Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP) per the docket (Dkt. 6). Venue matters here for the usual reasons: Judge Albright's Waco docket has been the country's highest-volume patent venue, known for a fast schedule and a deep bench of claim-construction precedent from Proxense's own prior cases, and Proxense expressly pleaded Waco retail sales (Walmart, Target, Best Buy, T-Mobile, Verizon) to anchor venue (Compl. ¶¶11–15). Notably, the Hyundai/Kia/Genesis complaint in the same campaign stresses that these patents are not SEPs and carry no FRAND commitments, which removes the licensing-defense framework that automakers and handset makers normally rely on (ip fray / Chinese trade press summary, Jan. 2025).

Asserted patents and accused technology. The complaint asserts seven patents (RPX Insight lists 18 accused products across two market sectors, consumer electronics/PCs and mobile communications):

• U.S. 8,352,730 – "Biometric Personal Data Key (PDK) Authentication": a device persistently storing a device ID code and secret decryption value, verified by a biometric scan, that wirelessly sends codes to a third-party trusted authority.
• U.S. 9,298,905 – same PDK family/continuation, broader claims on the biometric-PDK authentication handshake.
• U.S. 10,698,989 ("the '989") – same family; the patent at the center of this docket entry, asserted at claims 1–6.
• U.S. 9,251,332 – "Security System and Method for Controlling Access to Computing Resources": a detection engine that senses proximity of a digital key to a reader and applies stored security setup data (including exit-based rules) to control access to resources.
• U.S. 10,469,456 – same security-system family, directed to vault-stored security setup data tied to a detected digital key.
• U.S. 11,086,979 – same family, claiming the vehicle-side method of permitting access based on the key's proximity.
• U.S. 8,036,152 – "Integrated Power Management of a Client Device Via System Time Slot Assignment": power-savings via assigned time slots (asserted against LG's Wi-Fi 6-and-later products implementing Target Wake Time).

The accused instrumentalities fall into three buckets: (1) LG Pay / the LG Pay App on LG mobile phones, accused of contributory infringement of the biometric PDK patents (Compl. ¶¶224–234); (2) LG's "Accused Digital Key System" — vehicle systems using UWB/BLE to detect a phone-based digital key and unlock/start the car, i.e., CCC Digital Key–style functionality — accused of direct and induced infringement of the '332, '456, and '979 patents (¶¶157–187, 220–223); and (3) Wi-Fi products practicing TWT under the '152 patent (¶¶188–190). The '989 specifically is pleaded as contributorily infringed through distribution of the LG Pay App.

Why it's notable, and case status. Three things make this case worth tracking. First, it is a continuation of a well-documented NPE campaign by a former operating company: Proxense previously sued Samsung (6:21-cv-210-ADA, settled by consent judgment/stipulated dismissal in January 2023 on the eve of trial), Google (6:23-cv-320-ADA, settled January 2025, with the parallel Google/Apple IPRs terminated as to Google), and Microsoft (6:23-cv-319-ADA) and Apple (6:24-cv-00143-ADA), then expanded into automotive against Hyundai/Kia/Genesis (6:25-cv-00016, filed Jan. 14, 2025) and reportedly settled with Intel in March 2026 (ip fray). The LG case is one of the remaining live assertions in that campaign. Second, there is a thick PTAB/reexam linkage: Apple filed IPR2025-00600 challenging the '989 on March 18, 2025, which was terminated on July 1, 2025 (Unified Patents PTAB portal); Google/Apple IPRs (IPR2024-00232, -00233, -00782, -00783) were instituted on the PDK family; and Microsoft's IPR2024-00846 produced a final written decision holding many claims of the related '954 patent unpatentable. That generated a Federal Circuit appeal in which Proxense argues the PTAB abused its discretion under the APA by staying a parallel ex parte reexamination (No. 90/015,052 on the '730 patent) that was trending toward confirming patentability — a genuine inter-division conflict at the USPTO (ip fray, April 2026; Proxense appellate opening brief). Third, the defensive-patent community is actively working the portfolio: Unified Patents ran a PATROLL crowdsourcing contest on July 21, 2025 offering $2,000 each for prior art on the '332 and '956 patents, expressly noting the '332 patent "is currently asserted against LG." Procedurally, the case generated a long string of unopposed extensions of time to answer through 2024–2025 (Dkts. 7, 12–25), and on February 13, 2026 Proxense filed a motion to stay (Dkt. 26), which the Court granted on February 17, 2026 (Dkt. 27) — consistent with the case metadata's "stayed" status.

Sourcing caveats. The stay order's precise legal basis (e.g., § 1659 pending PTAB proceedings versus a joint/unopposed stay request) is not confirmed in the sources I could reach — I could not retrieve Dkt. 26 or 27 text, and my search did not surface any LG-filed IPR against the '989 specifically (the '989 IPR I found was Apple's). Attorney appearances beyond Ms. Smith, and the exact current LG answer/filing posture, also could not be independently verified. Treat those points as unverified pending PACER review.

I'll research this case systematically across the docket, PTAB, and legal news sources.

Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. et al., No. 6:24-cv-00302-ADA (W.D. Tex. Waco)

Bottom line: This case never got past the pleading stage. LG never filed an answer, no counterclaims, no scheduling order, no invalidity contentions, no Markman, no discovery. After roughly 20 months of serial answer extensions, the case was stayed on 2026-02-17. The real action in the Proxense campaign has been at the PTAB and in related cases against Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Google, and Intel.

---

1. Snapshot

---

2. Chronology of the litigation

2024-05-31 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1). Proxense filed a 16-count complaint in the Waco Division, alleging infringement of seven patents (Exhibits 1–7 to the complaint) by LG's Digital Key System and LG Pay. As to the '989 patent specifically, Proxense alleged contributory infringement via the LG Pay app, and the case summary reflects claims 1–6 asserted. Jury demand by plaintiff. Case randomly assigned to Judge Kathleen Cardone (No. WA-24-CV-302-KC).

2024-06-03 — Summons issued (Dkt. 4).

2024-06-04 — Reassignment to Judge Albright (Dkt. 5). Judge Cardone signed a transfer order reassigning the case to Judge Albright "with the consent of the receiving Judge," noting that "[p]rior to filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed four others, each alleging infringement of one or more of the same patents in suit here" — the court's standard practice of allocating related cases to the judge with the earliest-numbered related case. (Transfer order PDF)

2024-07-15 — LG appears and buys time (Dkt. 6–7). Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX — LG's frequent local counsel) noticed her appearance and filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to answer, coupled with a waiver of foreign service on LG Electronics Inc. (the Korean parent).

2024-07-16 — Order (Dkt. 8): motion granted; answer due 2024-10-17; service on LG Electronics Inc. waived.

2024-12-09 through 2026-01-13 — Nineteen-plus months of answer extensions (Dkts. 10–25). This is the defining feature of the docket. LG obtained, serially and largely unopposed, extensions of the answer deadline:

• Dkt. 10 (notice, 2024-12-09) → Dkt. 11 (motion, 2025-01-14)
• Dkt. 12 (notice, 2025-02-07) — struck by deficiency notice because Judge Albright's standing order requires extensions beyond 45 days from the original answer date to be sought by motion with a proposed order; refiled as Dkt. 13
• Dkt. 13 → order 2025-02-10 (answer due 2025-03-16)
• Dkt. 14 → order 2025-03-14 (due 2025-04-15)
• Dkt. 15 → order 2025-04-08 (due 2025-05-15)
• Dkt. 16 → order 2025-05-13 (due 2025-06-14)
• Dkt. 17 → order 2025-06-12 (due 2025-07-16)
• Dkt. 18 → order 2025-07-10 (due 2025-08-15)
• minute order 2025-08-13; Dkt. 20 → order 2025-09-12 (Dkt. 21); minute order 2025-09-23
• Dkt. 22 (miscellaneous relief, 2025-10-15) → order 2025-10-16
• Dkt. 23 (2025-11-12) → order/deadline reset 2025-11-13
• Dkt. 24 (extension of time to file answer, 2025-12-12)
• Dkt. 25 (2026-01-13)

Strategic significance: the case was functionally frozen for ~19 months while the Proxense patent family was being litigated at the PTAB and in parallel district court actions. No answer means no invalidity contentions, no inequitable-conduct or licensing defenses on the record, no Rule 12 motion, no §101 challenge, and no IPR-estoppel clock running against LG. (CourtListener docket; PACER Monitor)

2026-02-13 — Motion to Stay Case (Dkt. 26). Filed by LG (docket text title only; I could not retrieve the brief or confirm whether it was opposed, stipulated, or premised on pending IPRs, the parallel PTAB/Federal Circuit proceedings, or settlement discussions — treat the basis as unverified).

2026-02-17 — Order on Motion to Stay Case (Dkt. 27). The case was stayed. The docket now carries the STAYED case flag alongside AAC2 and PATENT. This is the operative disposition as of 2026-09-27.

---

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to transfer venue: none filed. The only transfer was the intra-district reassignment of 2024-06-04 (Dkt. 5), which was court-initiated, not adversarial. Notably, Proxense has been a frequent target of §1404(a) transfer motions in Judge Albright's court (e.g., the Apple case), but LG did not file one here.
• Motion to dismiss: none filed.
• Motion to stay pending IPR: the 2026-02-13 motion (Dkt. 26) is the only stay motion of record; basis unverified.
• Summary judgment: none.
• Markman / claim construction: not reached in this case. There is no claim construction order. The only construction of record is at the PTAB, in a related Samsung IPR on the same family: the Board adopted Proxense's proposed construction of "third-party trusted authority" = "a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction" (see IPR2021-01444, Paper 11 at 15). Samsung later relied on this in seeking leave to amend invalidity contentions, noting that Proxense took a different, broader position in district court ("[a] third component that provides a second level of authentication") — a classic IPR-vs-district-court construction flip.

---

4. Parallel PTAB / USPTO proceedings touching the '989 patent and its family

This is where the case's real substance lives.

Downstream effect on the LG case: the '730 patent — one of the seven patents Proxense asserted against LG — had all of its claims cancelled on 2025-04-28, and Microsoft moved to dismiss the '730 patent with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). That development, plus the volume of pending PTAB activity on the asserted family, is the most plausible backdrop for the repeated extensions and the eventual stay. I could not, however, verify that the 2026-02-17 stay order cites the '730 cancellation or any specific IPR — the order's text is not in the public RECAP record I could retrieve.

Proxense's Federal Circuit appeal (2026). Proxense has appealed to the Federal Circuit from PTAB decisions in IPRs on U.S. Patent 8,886,954 ("Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication"), arguing that the PTAB violated the APA by staying a parallel ex parte reexamination that was on the verge of confirming patentability and then treating the examiner's withdrawal of prior-art rejections as "moot." Proxense's opening brief was filed in approximately September 2026. Proxense also challenges the Board's construction of "a third party that operates a trusted authority." (ip fray). A Proxense win here would restore claims that support the stayed cases against Apple, Microsoft, and — if it touches the same family — LG.

---

5. The broader Proxense campaign (context for the stay)

Per ip fray's coverage of the campaign and its April 2026 interview with Proxense CEO John Giobbi:

• Samsung — settled (and its IPRs were denied institution).
• Google — settled (reported 2025-01-24).
• Intel — settled (reported 2026-03-24).
• Apple (6:24-cv-00143) and Microsoft — litigation remains stayed.
• LG — covered in an ip fray piece dated on/about 2025-01-14 as part of the broader campaign.
• USPTO decisions "upheld core Proxense patents" (reported 2025-12-03), while tensions emerged between the PTAB and the Central Reexamination Unit (reported 2025-07-03).

This settlement pattern is material: Proxense has monetized this family primarily through settlements, and LG's serial extensions followed by a stay are consistent with a case being held in abeyance while validity and settlement leverage were resolved elsewhere.

---

6. What is not of record (and I did not fabricate)

• No answer, no counterclaims, no affirmative defenses by LG on this docket.
• No scheduling order, no docket control order, no Markman order, no discovery order, no protective order in this case.
• No trial, verdict, JMOL/new-trial motion, fee motion, judgment, or appeal in the district court case.
• No dispositive ruling of any kind other than the 2026-02-17 stay order.
• No verified evidence that LG itself filed an IPR against the '989 patent. The '989-specific challenges I can confirm are Samsung's (IPR2021-01448, denied 2022) and Apple's (IPR2025-00600).
• The text of the stay motion (Dkt. 26) and stay order (Dkt. 27) is not in the public RECAP record I was able to retrieve. Whether the stay is pending IPR, pending the Federal Circuit appeal, or by agreement is unconfirmed.
• The docket entries for the '989 patent's asserted-claim set come from the case summary (claims 1–6); the complaint text itself frames these as direct/indirect infringement via the Digital Key System plus contributory infringement via LG Pay.

---

7. Bottom line and what to watch

The only "legal development" of substance for this specific case is the 2026-02-17 stay, and the litigation's outcome to date is indefinite abeyance. LG never engaged on the merits in court. The patent-in-focus, U.S. 10,698,989, has survived one Samsung IPR challenge (institution denied) and is under a 2025 Apple challenge (IPR2025-00600) whose institution/merits outcome I could not confirm. Critically, a sister patent in the same asserted group — the '730 patent — lost all claims on 2025-04-28 via Proxense's own adverse judgment.

The three things that will determine whether this case ever revives:

1. The Federal Circuit appeal on the '954 patent — a Proxense win restores leverage across the campaign.
2. IPR2025-00600 (Apple) on the '989 — an adverse final written decision would gut the patent at issue here.
3. A settlement consistent with the Samsung/Google/Intel pattern — the most likely outcome given the 19 months of extensions and the stay.

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

Let me dig into additional angles.

Press coverage of Proxense v. LG Electronics — findings

Bottom line: I could not find any dedicated press article about this specific case. I searched multiple angles — the full caption ("Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., 6:24-cv-00302"), the party pairing (Proxense + LG Electronics), the asserted patent number (U.S. 10,698,989), and outcome terms (verdict/settlement) — across general web results and the trade/legal outlets you named (Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra, ip fray). What surfaced was almost entirely primary-source and docket material rather than journalism: the CourtListener docket (which reflects the complaint filed 2024-05-31, repeated answer-deadline extensions through 2025, the stay motion, and the Order on Motion to Stay Case entered Feb. 17, 2026, at ECF No. 27), Docket Alarm, Justia Dockets, RPX Insight (characterizing the case as willful patent infringement, 7 patents-in-suit, 18 accused products), and the complaint/joint filings themselves. The only third-party editorial item that referenced the LG action at all was an analysis piece on the broader Proxense enforcement campaign. No damages figure, settlement, verdict, or executive statement about the LG case appeared in any press source I located.

The closest adjacent coverage is about the campaign, not this case. ip fray published an analysis of Proxense's Federal Circuit opening brief arguing that the PTAB violated the Administrative Procedure Act by staying a parallel ex parte reexamination that was trending toward affirming patentability of U.S. 8,886,954, and then disregarding the examiner's withdrawal of prior-art rejections as "moot." That piece frames the litigation strategy contextually — it characterizes Proxense as an NPE and former operating company, states that Proxense "previously settled its disputes with Samsung and later with Google," "more recently with Intel," and that litigation against Apple and Microsoft remains stayed — and it explicitly places LG within the campaign, citing its own earlier reporting on "proceedings involving LG Electronics" (dated January 14, 2025 in ip fray's internal cross-reference). I was unable to retrieve that specific January 2025 LG article, so I cannot quote or characterize its contents; the link above is to the appellate-brief piece that references it. The same ip fray piece also notes an exclusive interview with Proxense CEO John Giobbi (referenced as April 7, 2026, ip fray) and prior USPTO decisions described as upholding core Proxense patents (referenced as December 3, 2025), neither of which I could open to verify.

Other coverage touches Proxense but not LG. IPWatchdog reported in its January 25, 2024 Patent Filings Roundup that "[e]ight IPRs were filed against eight of inventor-controlled Proxense, LLC's biometric authentication patents (three by Google and two by Microsoft), which target the provision of universal platform password-less authentication architecture" — useful context on the parallel PTAB front, but it does not mention LG. Separately, the PTAB docket for IPR2025-00600 (Apple Inc. v. Proxense LLC), which challenges the '989 patent — the same patent asserted against LG here — shows the petition filed March 18, 2025 and "Procedural Termination" on July 1, 2025 per Unified Patents' PTAB portal; the '989 patent is also among the patents-in-suit in the co-pending Apple and Microsoft actions in Waco, per joint claim construction filings. None of that is press reporting on the LG case, and I did not find any outlet reporting that the LG stay was tied to those PTAB proceedings, so the causal connection should be treated as unverified.

Where reporting goes beyond the record: only in the aggregate, and only via ip fray's campaign-level framing (NPE characterization, settlement sequencing with Samsung/Google/Intel, and the editorial claim that a Federal Circuit win "may put more pressure" on Apple and Microsoft to settle "as Samsung, Google and Intel have already done"). No outlet offered damages estimates, market-impact analysis, or LG statements specific to this docket. Note also that search results are dominated by Korean-language coverage of Proxense's Samsung Pay suit (e.g., The Guru / 더구루), which concerns patents overlapping the LG case (including the '989 patent) but is a different defendant and a different case — a live risk of conflation if you rely on keyword-based aggregation.

Sources

• Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., 6:24-cv-00302 - CourtListener.com
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• 204. Proxense repeats and realleges all preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.205. LG induced direct infringement o...
• Docket updates for Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., 6:24-cv-00302 - Docket updates for Proxense, LLC v
• Search Federal court records on "patent infringement", page 5
• v
• Cases
• 154. Upon information and belief, Defendants will continue to infringe the 989 Patent unless permanently enjoined by this Court
• Cases
• Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc. et al (6:24-cv-00302), Texas Western District Court
• IPR2025-00600 - Apple Inc v. Proxense LLC - IPR2025-00600 - Apple Inc v. Proxense LLCReport Error

I'll research plaintiff's counsel in this case.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00302-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line up front: Proxense is represented in this campaign by a two-firm trial team — Hecht Partners LLP (New York), which has been Proxense's lead trial counsel across the portfolio since the Samsung case, and Susman Godfrey LLP (Houston/Los Angeles), which signed on as co-lead beginning with the 2023 Google and Microsoft complaints. Proxense's PTAB-side representation runs through Hecht Partners and Patent Law Works. One important caveat: I could not retrieve the full "ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" block from the 6:24-cv-00302 docket sheet itself (PACER/CourtListener paywalled for the attorney listing, and the free mirrors I reached truncate the plaintiff-attorney field). So the roster below is verified for the campaign and only partly verified for this docket. I flag each entry's verification status individually rather than presenting inference as fact.

Verified on this case's docket

David L. Hecht — Lead counsel (co-lead). Hecht Partners LLP, 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017.

• Docket verification: Yes, indirectly but firmly. The PacerMonitor docket text for 6:24-cv-00302 shows a Proxense filing captioned "NOTICE of Extension of Time for Defendant to Answer or Otherwise Respond by Proxense, LLC re 1 Complaint… (Hecht, David)" — i.e., Hecht is the ECF filer of record for the plaintiff in this case. The Justia snapshot of the docket (retrieved July 16, 2024) likewise shows the plaintiff's attorney field populated with a "David L. …" entry.
• Experience note: Registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 61,618). He is the architect of the Proxense campaign — he argued the Markman hearing in Proxense v. Samsung (W-21-cv-210, Dec. 27, 2021) and argued Proxense's side of the consolidated Samsung IPR oral hearing (IPR2021-01438/-01439, Nov. 29, 2022). He and Mr. Price attended the May 5, 2025 meet-and-confer in Proxense v. Microsoft on the '730 patent dismissal dispute.

Highly likely on this docket — verified only in closely related Proxense cases

Brian D. Melton — Co-lead counsel. Susman Godfrey LLP, 1000 Louisiana St., Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77002.

• Listed as LEAD ATTORNEY / ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED for Proxense on the docket in Proxense v. Apple (6:24-cv-00143-ADA) and as Co-Lead Counsel on the signature block of the Proxense v. Microsoft complaint (6:23-cv-319). He appears on PTAB papers as Proxense's Susman Godfrey contact (IPR2025-00074).
• Susman Godfrey is Proxense's Texas-bar anchor firm in these W.D. Tex. filings; it would be unusual for the LG case to be staffed without them, but I could not confirm his appearance in 6:24-cv-00302 specifically.

Maxim Price — Hecht Partners LLP, New York.

• Appeared alongside Mr. Hecht at the Samsung Markman hearing ("This is David Hecht and Maxim Price from Hecht Partners for the plaintiff Proxense") and at the Microsoft meet-and-confer. Listed in the Microsoft complaint signature block as "pro hac vice forthcoming." Not independently confirmed on the LG docket.

Conor B. McDonough — Hecht Partners LLP, New York.

• Listed on the Proxense v. Microsoft complaint signature block (2023) and attended the Samsung Markman hearing. Not independently confirmed on the LG docket.

Geoffrey L. Harrison; Meng Xi; Bryce T. Barcelo — Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston.

• Named in the Susman Godfrey signature block of the Proxense v. Microsoft complaint. Not independently confirmed on the LG docket.

Lear Jiang — Susman Godfrey LLP, 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400, Los Angeles, CA.

• Notice of appearance for Proxense filed in Proxense v. Apple (docket entry 26, entered 05/31/2024); Law360 lists him on Proxense, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (D. Utah/Tex. Western, Mar. 18, 2024). Not independently confirmed on the LG docket.

PTAB / prosecution-side counsel (not district court appearances)

James Zak — Hecht Partners LLP, New York (Reg. No. 60,190).

• Signed Proxense's Patent Owner Power of Attorney in the PTAB proceedings (e.g., IPR2024-01326 re the '730 patent, filed Sept. 27, 2024) and argued the November 2022 Samsung IPR hearing in Mr. Hecht's stead. Role is PTAB-practice, not the W.D. Tex. docket.

Greg Sueoka / Patent Law Works, 4516 South 700 East, Suite 290, Salt Lake City, UT 84107.

• Served as Proxense's correspondence/docketing address for the PTAB filings (e.g., IPR2025-00074). Likely portfolio-prosecution rather than litigation counsel.

In-house

No in-house counsel for Proxense has been identified in any of the sources I could reach. Proxense's principal is CEO John Giobbi, a named inventor on the asserted PDK family — not an attorney of record.

Verification gaps and caveats (please read)

1. I could not pull the definitive attorney roster from the 6:24-cv-00302 docket sheet. CourtListener's attorney listing and PACER are behind access walls, and the free mirrors (docketalarm, gaeflex, dockets.justia, PacerMonitor, RPX Insight) truncate the plaintiff-counsel block. Confirm the complete list via PACER or a CourtListener RECAP pull of the docket's "Attorneys" panel.
2. No pro hac vice orders are visible in the public docket text for this case. The docket entries surfaced (Dkts. 6, 7, 10–25) are almost entirely LG-side extension notices and text orders on those extensions, then Proxense's Feb. 13, 2026 motion to stay (Dkt. 26) and the Feb. 17, 2026 order granting it (Dkt. 27). If no pro hac vice motions appear, it may be because the case stalled on answer deadlines for ~20 months and was then stayed before the pro hac vice cycle began — meaning the "counsel of record" list here may be shorter than the campaign roster above.
3. Attorney appearances change with firm mobility. The Hecht Partners/Susman Godfrey pairing is documented as of the 2023–2024 complaints; I have no filing in the record confirming that pairing still holds for the LG matter as of 2026.
4. Consistency with the earlier case summary: Nothing here contradicts the previously generated sections. The earlier note that LG's counsel of record is Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP) is confirmed by docket entry 6 (notice of appearance, July 15, 2024) as reported by Justia. The earlier caveat that the stay order's legal basis is unconfirmed also stands — the docket reflects a Proxense-filed motion to stay (Dkt. 26) granted Feb. 17, 2026 (Dkt. 27), which is more consistent with a party-requested stay pending PTAB/reexam activity than with a sua sponte § 1659 stay, but I could not read either document.

Recommended next step for a definitive list: order the docket sheet PDF from PACER for 6:24-cv-00302 (the header pages list every attorney with firm, address, and "LEAD ATTORNEY/ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" designations), or seek the plaintiff's signature block on Dkt. 26 (the motion to stay), which will name the drafting attorneys.

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record for this case.

Let me pull the fuller docket and check for additional appearances.

Let me look at the full docket text and the stay filings.

Defense Counsel of Record — Proxense, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00302-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Bottom line

The docket reflects exactly one attorney of record for both LG entities: Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith, LLP. She is the only defense-side lawyer who has entered an appearance in this case. Because the case was stayed before LG ever answered, no pro hac vice admissions were ever made and no additional defense counsel appear on the docket. I found no evidence of the multi-firm defense teams that LG has used in other Texas patent cases (e.g., Morgan Lewis, H.C. Park & Associates) appearing here.

Counsel identified

1. Melissa Richards Smith — lead/only counsel of record (local counsel of record)

• Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP — 303 S. Washington Ave., Marshall, TX 75670; the firm also lists a Tyler, TX office (7232 Crosswater Ave.) at which Smith's co-counsel appear in other matters.
• Docket basis: Dkt. 6, Notice of Attorney Appearance filed July 15, 2024, adding her "on behalf of LG Electronics Inc." and "LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc." (PACER/CourtListener entry text; Docket Alarm; Dockets.Justia). She then filed the first unopposed extension motion (Dkt. 7, with the foreign-service waiver for LG Electronics Inc.) and signed every subsequent extension filing in the case (Dkts. 12–25 per PACER Monitor docket text).
• Role: Only counsel of record; functionally acting as Texas local counsel and the sole signatory on the defense filings. No designated "lead trial counsel" appears on this docket, and no non-Texas firm has been admitted pro hac vice here.
• Experience note: Smith is one of the most active local patent-defense counsel in Texas, with a long track record representing LG in patent suits. Confirmed examples: Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd. v. LG Electronics (E.D. Tex.) — where she filed LG's compliance notices, redactions, and settled-trial filings into 2025; and LG's defense in Maxell, Ltd. v. LG Electronics (E.D. Tex. 5:24-cv-04972), where she withdrew in September 2024. She also appears for LG in the same Proxense campaign's related Waco docket as local counsel.

What is not on the docket (and why)

• No pro hac vice motions, no additional appearances. In the related Proxense matters and other LG Texas cases, LG's teams have included Morgan Lewis & Bockius (Susan Kendall Stradley – Houston; Jason C. White and Michael Sikora – Chicago; Brooke Quesinberry and Jason Gettleman – Palo Alto; Collin W. Park, Natalie A. Bennett – D.C.; Nicholas A. Restauri; Austin Zuck), H.C. Park & Associates, PLC (Alan A. Wright, Oluwaseun O. Ajayi, Brendan P. O'Shea – Reston, VA), and Hueston Hennigan LLP (John C. Hueston, Douglas J. Dixon, Alexander C.D. Giza). Those names come from other LG matters, not from this docket — I flag them only as the likely bench behind the scenes, and I am not asserting they have appeared in 6:24-cv-00302.
• No in-house appearance. I did not find an LG in-house attorney entered in this case. Separately, LG Electronics Inc.'s IP Center (Seoul) has used in-house counsel James Suh in Federal Circuit amicus filings, but that is a different proceeding and is not an appearance here.

Sourcing caveats

• The docket text I could reach is a mix of PACER-derived aggregators whose coverage of this case is stale. Dockets.Justia's last retrieval is July 16, 2024; CourtListener/RECAP entries are incomplete; Docket Alarm's page renders the header but the filing table did not surface in my results. I could not retrieve the text of Dkt. 26 (Motion to Stay, Feb. 13, 2026) or Dkt. 27 (Order, Feb. 17, 2026), so I cannot confirm who signed the stay motion. Note a potential inconsistency with the prior case summary: that section states Proxense filed the motion to stay, while the CourtListener entry for Dkt. 26 is captioned simply "Stay Case" — worth resolving against PACER, since it bears on which side drove the stay.
• Because LG never filed an answer or motion to dismiss (only serial unopposed extensions of time through at least January 2026), the appearance record is unusually thin: Melissa Richards Smith is very likely the entire counsel of record, but a definitive confirmation requires a live PACER docket sheet and the text of Dkts. 24–27. I would not represent this list as complete beyond Dkt. 6 without that check.