• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
23 results

VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Hisense Co. Ltd. et al

Docket 2:24-cv-00904, Texas Eastern District Court (Nov. 6, 2024)
District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, presiding, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne
Patent
DivisionMarshall
FlagsJRG3, JURY, PATENT/TRADEMARK
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7769238; 7970059; 8291236; 8605794; 8667304
77692387970059
8291236
86057948667304
DeadlineIt is further ORDERED that Defendants shall move, answer, or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by April 14, 2025.
Plaintiff VideoLabs, Inc.
Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC
Defendant Hisense Co. Ltd.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Roku, Inc.

Docket 1:23-cv-01136, Delaware District Court (Oct. 11, 2023)
Judge Joel H Slomsky, presiding
Patent
DivisionWilmington
FlagsSTAYED, CLOSED, PATENT
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7233790; 7440559; 7769238; 7970059; 8291236; 8605794; 8667304
7233790744055977692387970059
8291236
86057948667304
Plaintiff VideoLabs, Inc.
Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC
Defendant Roku, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 24 ORDER granting 23 Motion to Modify Case Schedule

Document VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Hisense Co. Ltd. et al, 2:24-cv-00904, No. 24 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 27, 2025)
Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Modify Case Schedule.
Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint by March 31, 2025.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall move, answer, or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by April 14, 2025.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 17 ORDER granting 16 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Or Otherwise Respond to ...

Document VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Hisense Co. Ltd. et al, 2:24-cv-00904, No. 17 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 23, 2024)
Motion to Extend Time to AnswerGranted
VIDEOLABS, INC. and VL
Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Move, Answer, or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint and Waiver of Foreign Service Requirement.
Having considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that is should be and hereby is
Therefore it is ORDERED that the deadline for Defendants Hisense Co. Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co. Ltd. F/K/A Qingdao Hisense Electric Co. Ltd.; Hisense International Co. Ltd.; Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investments Co. Ltd., Guiyang Hisense Electronics Co., Ltd., Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. De C.V. and Hisense International (HK) Co. Ltd. to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint is hereby extended until April 2, 2025.
Case 2:24-cv-00904-JRG-RSP Document 17 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: It is further ORDERED that service of process for Defendants Hisense Co. Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co. Ltd. F/K/A Qingdao Hisense Electric Co. Ltd.; Hisense International Co. Ltd.; Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investments Co. Ltd., Guiyang Hisense Electronics Co., Ltd., Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. De C.V. and Hisense International (HK) Co. Ltd. has been waived.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 41 ORDER STAYING CASE: Defendant's Motion to Stay (Doc No. 36 ) is GRANTED

Document VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Roku, Inc., 1:23-cv-01136, No. 41 (D.Del. Jul. 26, 2024)
Motion to StayGranted
VIDEOLABS, INC. and VL COLLECTIVE
AND NOW, this 26th day of July 2024, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 36) and the statements of the parties made at the July 25, 2024 telephone conference, it is ORDERED that: 1.
Defendant’s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 36) is GRANTED.
All proceedings in this case are stayed until January 12, 2025.
The parties shall provide a joint status report to the Court within seven (7) business days of when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) issues final written decisions in the following inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings: IPR2023-00628,
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 23 JOINT MOTION to Modify Case Schedule by Hisense Co. Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co. Ltd

Document VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Hisense Co. Ltd. et al, 2:24-cv-00904, No. 23 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 25, 2025)
On November 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging patent infringement against Defendants.
On December 23, 2024, the Court entered an order extending the time for all Defendants to move, answer or otherwise respond to April 2, 2025.
On March 24, 2025, Defendants replaced their counsel with the attorneys of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
On March 25, 2025, to facilitate an orderly and efficient process, the parties agreed that Plaintiffs would file an amended complaint by March 31, 2025, and Defendants would answer that amended complaint by April 14, 2025.
WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request the Court to modify the case schedule such that Plaintiffs are required to file an amended complaint by March 31, 2025, and Defendants are required to move, answer or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by April 14, 2025.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 16 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer Or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint ...

Document VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Hisense Co. Ltd. et al, 2:24-cv-00904, No. 16 (E.D.Tex. Dec. 6, 2024)
Motion to Extend Time to Answer
In support of their Motion, the parties state as follows: Case 2:24-cv-00904-JRG-RSP Document 16 Filed 12/06/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
On November 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint alleging patent infringement against Defendants.
On December 2, 2024, counsel for Defendants agreed to waive service under the Hague Convention for Defendants, all foreign entities, in exchange for a 120-day extension of time for all Defendants to answer or otherwise plead by April 2, 2025.
Defendants’ agreement with Plaintiffs should not be construed as a waiver of any other rights or defenses, including, for instance, Defendants’ right to file counterclaims, affirmative defenses, or to otherwise challenge the validity of the subject patents.
WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the time in which Defendants are required to move, answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint be extended up to and including April 2, 2025.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

No. 1 COMPLAINT against Guiyang Hisense Electronics Co., Ltd., Hisense Co. Ltd., Hisense Electronica ...

Document VideoLabs, Inc. et al v. Hisense Co. Ltd. et al, 2:24-cv-00904, No. 1 (E.D.Tex. Nov. 6, 2024)
Complaint
To this day, VideoLabs continues to promote an efficient, respected, and balanced intellectual property environment where technology companies have predictable design freedom and innovators who contribute impactful patented inventions can obtain fair and just compensation.
On information and belief, personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over each of the Defendants because they have overlapping executives, interlocking corporate structures and close relationships as manufacturer, importer and distributor of accused products.
The patent vastly improves upon existing methods, and the core technology it describes has been used throughout the industry for years as the Case 2:24-cv-00904-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/06/24 Page 18 of 47 PageID #: gold standard for coding video.
May 12, Case 2:24-cv-00904-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/06/24 Page 32 of 47 PageID #: 2014) (intent satisfied where defendant provided “technical support and services, as well as detailed explanations, instructions and information as to arrangements, applications and uses” of accused products).
Case 2:24-cv-00904-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 11/06/24 Page 41 of 47 PageID #: 2014) (intent satisfied where defendant provided “technical support and services, as well as detailed explanations, instructions and information as to arrangements, applications and uses” of accused products).
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 >>