Litigation

VideoLabs, Inc. v. TCL Technology Group Corporation et al.

dismissed with prejudice; closed

2:25-cv-00161-JRG-RSP

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Filed: 2025-02-10
Terminated: 2025-11-14

Patents at issue (7)

7769238 PTAB settled/terminated

8291236 3 discretionary denials

8667304 PTAB: discretionary denial

Plaintiffs (1)

π VideoLabs, Inc.

Defendants (12)

Summary

VideoLabs sued TCL entities for infringement of seven patents, including the '027 patent, accusing the infrastructure and equipment comprising TCL's TCLtv+ service, with at least independent claim 10 of the '027 patent asserted. The case was dismissed with prejudice and closed by order entered November 14, 2025.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 8220027-2-25-cv-00161-jrg-rsp · edit in Admin

Further reading

What is a patent?
A patent is a deal between an inventor and the government — a 20-year monopoly in exchange for public disclosure. Most patents that get litigated would not survive serious scrutiny.
Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness (2014)
Octane Fitness rejected the rigid Brooks Furniture test and restored district-court discretion over fee awards. Together with its companion Highmark, it gave defendants the most realistic post-trial recovery path the modern patent system has produced.
The first 30 days after a patent infringement complaint
Most defendants spend the first 30 days reacting. The defendants who do well spend it sequencing — because every move you make in month one shapes the budget, leverage, and exit options for the next two years.
Patent trolls in 2025: the year in numbers
2025 was a banner year for patent trolls — and not by accident. Filings surged while the defendant's cheapest weapon, the PTAB, was quietly taken off the table. Here's what the reporting shows, and why the two are connected.
§ 285 attorney-fee shifting in practice
§ 285 isn't a guaranteed remedy. It's a high-effort, high-evidence tool that pays off occasionally and dramatically — turning a $3M defense expense into a $3M plaintiff bill.

All resources →