Celerity IP & Innovative Sonic v. LG Electronics: Five Wireless Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice in 322 Days
Celerity IP, LLC and Innovative Sonic, Ltd. filed suit against LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting five patents covering LTE/5G wireless communications protocols including HARQ, scheduling, and PDCP-layer data handling. The case resolved via joint motion and was dismissed with prejudice after just 322 days — suggesting private settlement terms, though none were disclosed in the public record.
Five LTE/5G Protocol Patents, One Joint Dismissal, Zero Disclosed Terms
On June 30, 2023, Celerity IP, LLC and Innovative Sonic, Ltd. filed a patent infringement action (Case No. 2:23-cv-00316) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against LG Electronics, Inc. and its U.S. subsidiary, LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. The complaint asserted five U.S. patents — US8804756B2, US9124558B2, US8223708B2, US9979514B2, and US7664059B2 — all covering fundamental wireless communications technologies including HARQ semi-persistent scheduling, scheduling request procedures, random access interaction, and PDCP-layer data decryption in LTE and related wireless systems.
The case closed on May 17, 2024, via a Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by all parties, which the Court granted in full. All claims and causes of action were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-litigation of the same claims between these parties. The Court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a cost allocation that is neutral on its face and consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a contested adjudication on the merits.
The 322-day duration from filing to closure is relatively swift for a five-patent wireless infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas, suggesting the parties may have reached agreement well before the case reached claim construction or trial. The joint nature of the motion and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with an undisclosed private settlement, though no licensing terms, royalty figures, or admissions appear in the public record. What drove resolution — whether portfolio cross-licensing, a lump-sum payment, or operational considerations — remains unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 322 days
322 days — below the EDTX median for multi-patent wireless infringement actions
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice permanently closes the door on these claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Celerity IP and Innovative Sonic cannot re-file these five patent claims against LG Electronics or its U.S. subsidiary in any federal court. The joint nature of the motion — filed by all four parties — indicates mutual agreement, distinguishing this from a unilateral plaintiff withdrawal.
Permanent bar on re-litigationPlaintiffs lose litigation leverage but likely extracted value privately
Celerity IP and Innovative Sonic surrendered the ability to pursue LG on these five patents in future litigation. However, the swift resolution and joint filing are consistent with a negotiated exit — potentially a licensing payment or portfolio agreement — rather than a courtroom defeat. The public record does not confirm any consideration exchanged. Each patent remains valid and enforceable against third parties not party to this dismissal.
Private resolution likelyLG secures permanent peace on five wireless protocol patents
LG Electronics and its U.S. subsidiary are permanently released from these specific claims. If a settlement was reached, LG may have secured a license — or the plaintiffs may have concluded that the litigation economics did not support continuation. LG bears its own legal costs with no fee award, which is typical where no prevailing party is formally designated. LG’s broader wireless patent exposure from other claimants is unaffected.
Claims extinguished against LGWireless protocol patent enforcement in EDTX remains commercially viable
This case reinforces the Eastern District of Texas as an active venue for wireless protocol patent assertions against major device manufacturers. The rapid closure without trial suggests LTE/5G stack patents — particularly those covering HARQ, scheduling, and PDCP procedures — carry sufficient licensing leverage to drive pre-trial resolution. Companies shipping LTE/5G-enabled devices should monitor this patent family and related portfolios held by licensing entities.
EDTX wireless IP enforcement activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Celerity IP, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entities — holders of five LTE/5G wireless protocol patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Innovative Sonic, Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | LG Electronics, Inc. | Company | LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. — global consumer electronics and wireless device manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lg Electronics U.S.A., Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam S. Rizk | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Halliday DeVoogd | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ashanthi Meena Seralathan | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Austin C. Teng | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel Benjamin Weinger | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Higer | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hardeman Grant Tucker | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jamie H. McDole | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | M. Reza Dokhanchy | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Lawrence Vitale | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Daley Karson | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael T. Renaud | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Miranda Yan Jones | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Phillip Brett Philbin | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Christopher Bunt | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Simone Yhap | Attorney | Counsel for Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo PC (Boston) | Law Firm | Representing Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C | Law Firm | Representing Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Parker Bunt & Ainsworth PC | Law Firm | Representing Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Winstead PC | Law Firm | Representing Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Winstead PC(Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Celerity IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brianna Lynn Silverstein | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lora A. Brzezynski | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thatcher Albert Rahmeier | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP (Wilmington) | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order adopts the joint motion language verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice of all claims and causes of action between all four parties. The explicit ‘resolved’ representation by the parties — combined with mutual cost-bearing — is consistent with a private settlement, though the order contains no admission of liability, no royalty figure, and no licensing terms. The ‘DENIED AS MOOT’ disposition of all pending relief requests confirms no substantive rulings on infringement, validity, or claim construction were issued prior to dismissal. The five patents remain valid and enforceable against the broader market.
US8804756B2 — LTE error handling and wireless protocol stack patents
The five asserted patents — US8804756B2, US9124558B2, US8223708B2, US9979514B2, and US7664059B2 — address foundational procedures in LTE and related wireless standards. The claims span error handling at the system level, HARQ process management under semi-persistent scheduling (a key LTE Release 8 feature), uplink scheduling information reporting, the procedural interaction between scheduling requests and random access, and data decryption at the PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) layer. These are not peripheral features — they are deeply embedded in 3GPP-compliant modem implementations and present in virtually every LTE-capable device.
From a competitive intelligence standpoint, patents at this level of the wireless protocol stack are strategically significant because infringement is difficult to design around without departing from the standard. Any device — smartphone, tablet, connected vehicle module, IoT device — that implements LTE or 5G NR with LTE fallback may fall within the technical scope of these claims. The co-assertion of five patents spanning multiple protocol layers suggests a deliberate portfolio construction aimed at maximising claim coverage against standard-essential or standard-adjacent implementations. Wireless OEMs, chipset vendors, and their customers face potential exposure if similar licensing campaigns are directed at their products.
Should you run an FTO against US8804756B2 and the Celerity IP / Innovative Sonic portfolio?
Any engineering or legal team developing, shipping, or sourcing LTE- or 5G-capable devices — including smartphones, tablets, CPE, automotive telematics, or IoT modules — should treat this patent family as a live risk. The five patents cover HARQ, PDCP, and scheduling procedures that are standard-adjacent or potentially standard-essential in 3GPP implementations. The rapid settlement with LG Electronics suggests the plaintiff entities regard these patents as commercially enforceable, and similar demands to other device makers are plausible.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP counsel to map each of the five patent numbers against your specific implementation stack — identifying claim elements, prosecution history estoppel, and any prior art that may limit scope. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can also alert you to new filings by Celerity IP, Innovative Sonic, or related assignees, enabling proactive rather than reactive IP risk management across your LTE/5G product lines.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8804756B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LTE/5G wireless protocol patent cases in EDTX and beyond
Related patent infringement actions involving LTE/5G wireless protocol stack patents — including HARQ, PDCP, and scheduling — filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the wireless communications IP landscape
Five foundational LTE/5G protocol patents drove a 322-day EDTX dispute to a quiet, permanent close — with implications across the wireless device sector.
EDTX remains a high-leverage venue for wireless stack patent assertions
The Eastern District of Texas continues to attract wireless protocol patent cases against Tier-1 device manufacturers. The sub-year resolution here, before claim construction, suggests plaintiffs secured commercial value without trial risk. Device makers operating in this space should maintain active docket monitoring in EDTX.
Joint dismissals with prejudice often mask undisclosed licensing economics
When both sides file jointly and each bears their own costs, the public record reveals nothing about consideration exchanged. IP counsel should treat this case as a data point in licensing negotiation benchmarking — not as evidence of a meritless claim or a walkaway. The portfolio’s enforceability against third parties is unaffected.
Celerity v LG — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 17, 2024, via a joint motion filed by all parties. The Court granted the motion in full, extinguishing all claims. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The parties represented the case had been ‘resolved,’ consistent with a private settlement, though no financial terms were disclosed.
Five U.S. patents were asserted: US8804756B2 (error handling in wireless systems), US9124558B2 (HARQ process handling for semi-persistent scheduling), US8223708B2 (scheduling information report handling), US9979514B2 (scheduling request and random access interaction), and US7664059B2 (PDCP-layer data decryption). All relate to LTE wireless communications protocols.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final disposition that permanently bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant in any federal court. It carries the same res judicata effect as a judgment on the merits. In this case, Celerity IP and Innovative Sonic cannot pursue LG Electronics on these five patents again. The patents remain enforceable against other third parties.
No merits determination was issued. The case was resolved by joint motion before any ruling on infringement or validity. While LG secured permanent release from these specific claims, the joint nature of the dismissal and mutual cost-bearing suggest a negotiated outcome rather than a litigation victory. Neither party made public admissions of liability or merit.
Yes. A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes claims only between the parties to this action — Celerity IP, Innovative Sonic, LG Electronics, and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. The underlying patents (US8804756B2, US9124558B2, US8223708B2, US9979514B2, US7664059B2) remain valid and potentially enforceable against other device manufacturers, chipset vendors, or licensees in the LTE/5G space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.