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

VIDEOLABS, INC. v. TCL Technology Group Corporation et al

Docket 2:25-cv-00161, Texas Eastern District Court (Feb. 10, 2025)
District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, presiding, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne
Patent
DivisionMarshall
FlagsJRG1, JURY, PATENT/TRADEMARK
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7525535; 7769238; 7970059; 8139878; 8220027; 8291236; 8667304
75255357769238797005981398788220027
8291236
8667304
Plaintiff VIDEOLABS, INC.
Defendant TCL Technology Group Corporation
Defendant TCL Electronics Holdings, Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.)
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

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; 8667304
77692387970059
8291236
8667304
Plaintiff VideoLabs, Inc.
Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC
Defendant Hisense Co. Ltd.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

VideoLabs, Inc. v. HP Inc.

Docket 6:23-cv-00641, Texas Western District Court (Aug. 31, 2023)
Judge Derek T. Gilliland, presiding
Patent
DivisionWaco
FlagsPATENT, STAYED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
7430608; 7970059; 8291236
74306087970059
8291236
DeadlineThe parties are ORDERED to file dismissal papers or a Motion for Scheduling Order on, or before, May 12, 2025.
DeadlinePursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court ORDERS that the following amended schedule will govern deadlines up to and including the trial of this matter: Deadline March 20, 2025 April 17, 2025 May 15, 2025 June 5, 2025 June 12, 2025 Item Close of Fact Discovery.
Plaintiff VideoLabs, Inc.
Defendant HP Inc.
Counter Plaintiff HP Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

ASUSTek Computer Inc. v. VideoLabs, Inc.

Docket IPR2025-00305, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 17, 2024)
Brian Murphy, Karl Easthom, Stacey White, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
8291236
Patent Owner VideoLabs, Inc.
Petitioner ASUSTek Computer Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

ASUSTek Computer Inc. v. VideoLabs, Inc.

Docket IPR2025-00306, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 17, 2024)
Brian Murphy, Karl Easthom, Stacey White, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
8291236
Patent Owner VideoLabs, Inc.
Petitioner ASUSTek Computer Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

ASUSTek Computer Inc. v. VideoLabs, Inc.

Docket IPR2025-00304, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Dec. 17, 2024)
Brian Murphy, Karl Easthom, Stacey White, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
8291236
Patent Owner VideoLabs, Inc.
Petitioner ASUSTek Computer 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. 15 ORDER granting-as-modified 13 Motion to Stay

Document VIDEOLABS, INC. v. TCL Technology Group Corporation et al, 2:25-cv-00161, No. 15 (E.D.Tex. Mar. 31, 2025)
Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Stay Pending Service of the TCL Defendants filed by Plaintiff VideoLabs, Inc. and the TCL Defendants.
Dkt. No. 12.
After consideration, and noting its joint nature, the Court GRANTS-AS-MODIFIED the Motion.
It is ORDERED that the above-captioned case is hereby STAYED for 90 days.
Should the Parties need more time they are directed to file a motion with the Court showing that there is good cause and they have exercised sufficient diligence in pursuing service.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... 12 13 14 >>