Hafeman v. LG Electronics: Jury Clears LG on All Counts After 4-Year Fight
Individual inventor Carolyn Hafeman sued LG Electronics over three patents covering device-lock and remote-access technology embedded in Android’s Find My Device feature. After a four-day jury trial in Waco, Texas, the jury found LG did not infringe and that all nine asserted claims across three patents are invalid — a complete defense verdict covering more than 40 LG device models.
Individual Inventor Loses Sweep: Non-Infringement and Invalidity on All Fronts
Filed in July 2021 before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas, Hafeman v. LG Electronics centred on three U.S. patents — Nos. 9,892,287, 10,325,122, and 10,789,393 — directed at methods and systems for remotely locking, locating, and managing mobile devices. Plaintiff Carolyn Hafeman, an individual inventor, alleged that LG’s Android-powered smartphones, tablets, and laptops incorporating the ‘Find My Device’ feature infringed nine specific claims across those three patents.
The jury trial commenced on 24 April 2023. Four days later the jury returned a unanimous verdict entirely in LG’s favour: no direct infringement, no induced infringement, no contributory infringement, and all nine asserted claims invalid. The court invalidated the claims under both 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) — based on Research in Motion’s BlackBerry system — and § 103 — based on Microsoft Windows 2000 in combination with IBM’s EP0687968A2 (Cohen). Judge Albright subsequently denied Hafeman’s Motion for a New Trial and for Partial Judgment as a Matter of Law, and entered Final Judgment on 9 October 2025.
The gap of roughly 29 months between the April 2023 jury verdict and the October 2025 Final Judgment is notable and suggests prolonged post-trial motion practice before the court formally closed the case. The public record does not disclose the size of any damages demand that was before the jury, nor whether LG will ultimately be awarded costs. What is clear is that the prior-art references that defeated Hafeman — BlackBerry’s system and the Cohen patent combined with Windows 2000 — were commercially well-known platforms, suggesting the asserted claims may have faced headwinds from the outset of claim construction.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 1560 days
1,560 days from filing to final judgment — well above the median for W.D. Texas patent cases
Complete defense verdict: what the jury’s findings mean for both parties
Dual-track invalidity: anticipation and obviousness both found
The jury invalidated all asserted claims on two independent grounds: anticipation under § 102(a) by RIM’s BlackBerry system, and obviousness under § 103 using Windows 2000 combined with IBM’s Cohen EPO publication. A finding on either ground alone would have been fatal to the patents; a finding on both materially narrows any appellate reversal path, as Hafeman would need to overturn both invalidity theories to revive the claims.
§§ 102 & 103 — both sustainedAll asserted claims invalidated; remaining claims dismissed with prejudice
Hafeman’s loss is comprehensive. The jury found no infringement on any of the three theories (direct, induced, contributory) and invalidated every asserted claim. Critically, Judge Albright’s Final Judgment also dismissed with prejudice all remaining claims in the three patents that were named in the complaint but not taken to trial. This forecloses re-assertion of those claims against LG and severely limits the patents’ enforcement value against any defendant who can point to the same prior art.
Full invalidity — re-assertion barredLG cleared on all counts; costs briefing still pending
LG Electronics secured the most complete outcome available at trial: no liability on any infringement theory and invalidation of the asserted patents. The judgment covers all 40-plus accused device models across smartphones, tablets, and laptops. The court has further ordered briefing on whether LG is entitled to costs — a finding of entitlement would represent an additional financial consequence for Hafeman, though the amount, if any, remains to be determined.
Full defense verdict — costs TBDWeakened patent family signals lower re-assertion risk across Android ecosystem
The invalidation of all asserted claims on well-known prior art — BlackBerry’s commercial system and a combination of Windows 2000 with a published IBM patent — suggests the Hafeman portfolio faces significant vulnerability in future enforcement actions against other Android device makers. Any company receiving a demand letter citing US9892287, US10325122, or US10789393 now has a jury verdict and detailed prior-art roadmap to rely on, materially improving their bargaining and litigation position.
Prior-art roadmap now publicFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Carolyn W. Hafeman | Individual | Individual inventor — holder of US9892287, US10325122 & US10789393 (device-lock/remote-access)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | LG Electronics, Inc. | Company | LG Electronics Inc. & LG Electronics U.S.A. — global consumer electronics and mobile device manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lg Electronics U.S.A., Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher N. McAndrew | Attorney | Counsel for Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel D. Duhaime | Attorney | Counsel for Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Genevieve Vose Wallace | Attorney | Counsel for Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason C. Linger | Attorney | Counsel for Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kalpana Srinivasan | Attorney | Counsel for Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Krisina J. Zuniga | Attorney | Counsel for Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lawrence M. Hadley | Attorney | Counsel for Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark D. Siegmund | Attorney | Counsel for Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Max L. Tribble , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas V. DelRosario | Attorney | Counsel for Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing | Law Firm | Representing Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glaser, Weil, Fink, Howard, Avchen & Shapiro LLP | Law Firm | Representing Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP | Law Firm | Representing Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Susman Godfrey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Carolyn W. HafemanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Barry Kenneth Shelton | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brianna L. Silverstein | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Carrie A. Beyer | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Celine Jimenez Crowson | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gurtej Singh | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Helen Y. Trac | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Stephen Ravel | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Travis Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kirsten L. Elfstrand | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kirstin L. Stoll-Debell | 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 | Michael E. Jones | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nitin Gambhir | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Reedy C. Swanson | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shaun William Hassett | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yi Zhang | Attorney | Counsel for 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 ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hogan Lovells US LLP | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Potter Minton PC | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shelton Coburn LLP | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Final Judgment is unusually comprehensive in scope. It addresses all three infringement theories individually (direct, induced, contributory), invalidates the asserted claims on two independent prior-art grounds, and dismisses with prejudice the non-asserted claims from the complaint — going beyond the strict jury verdict to eliminate all live patent claims tied to this dispute. The post-trial denial of Hafeman’s new-trial and JMOL motions confirms the court found the jury’s conclusions legally supportable on the evidence presented, further insulating the verdict from appellate challenge on sufficiency grounds.
US9892287, US10325122 & US10789393 — Mobile Device Remote-Lock & Access Technology
The three patents asserted at trial — US9892287, US10325122, and US10789393 — share a common inventive lineage directed at remotely controlling, locking, and managing access to mobile computing devices. The application dates span from approximately 2014 to 2019, placing them in the period when smartphone-integrated device-management features were becoming commercially mainstream. The technology domain sits at the intersection of mobile operating systems, device security, and cloud-based device management — the same space occupied by Android’s Find My Device platform.
Strategically, patents in the remote device-management space have attracted significant enforcement activity as smartphone penetration reached saturation and device-loss and theft scenarios became commercially prominent. The Hafeman portfolio targeted the Android ecosystem broadly, with accused products spanning budget to premium LG tiers. However, the jury’s reliance on pre-smartphone prior art — BlackBerry’s enterprise mobile management system and a 1990s-era IBM publication — suggests the claimed inventive steps may not have been sufficiently distinguished from enterprise device-management technology that predated the Android era.
Should you run an FTO against US9892287, US10325122, and US10789393?
Any company shipping Android-powered smartphones, tablets, or laptops that incorporate remote device-lock, device-find, or remote-wipe functionality — particularly features marketed under Google’s Find My Device umbrella — should assess exposure to the Hafeman patent family. Although the asserted claims are now invalidated by jury verdict, the six-patent portfolio contains additional claims and related continuations that may not be fully captured by this judgment. OEMs, ODMs, and app developers building on Android’s device-management APIs are the most directly at risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full Hafeman portfolio — including the three trial patents and the three additional patents named in the complaint — against your specific product’s feature set, identify which prior-art references (BlackBerry, Windows 2000, Cohen EP0687968A2) are most relevant to your invalidity arguments, and surface any related continuation applications that could give rise to future assertions. Run a targeted FTO before your next Android device launch or feature update involving remote device management.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9892287B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Cases: Remote Device-Management Patent Suits in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement cases involving mobile device security, remote-lock technology, and Android platform patents litigated in the Western District of Texas.
What Hafeman v. LG signals for the mobile device security IP landscape
A complete defense verdict — invalidity plus non-infringement — on remote device-management patents has ripple effects beyond this single dispute.
BlackBerry prior art is now a validated weapon against remote-lock patent claims
The jury’s § 102(a) finding based on RIM’s BlackBerry system establishes a concrete, jury-tested prior-art reference for device-lock and remote-management patent claims. Any Android or mobile OS vendor facing similar assertions should assess whether the BlackBerry system — in combination with Windows 2000-era prior art — can be deployed as a primary invalidity argument.
Dual invalidity findings sharply limit appellate upside for the patent holder
With both anticipation and obviousness sustained simultaneously, a successful appeal requires overturning both theories — a high appellate bar. Companies monitoring this portfolio for re-assertion risk against their own products can note that the prior-art record is now fully developed and publicly filed, reducing the cost and uncertainty of any future invalidity defence.
Hafeman v LG — key questions answered
On 28 April 2023, a unanimous jury found in favour of LG Electronics on all counts: LG does not directly infringe, induce infringement, or contribute to infringement of any asserted claim. The jury also found all nine asserted claims of US9892287, US10325122, and US10789393 invalid. Judge Albright entered Final Judgment confirming those findings on 9 October 2025.
The jury invalidated all asserted claims on two independent grounds: anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) based on Research in Motion’s BlackBerry system, and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Microsoft Windows 2000 combined with IBM’s EPO Publication No. EP0687968A2 (Cohen). The court’s Final Judgment confirmed both invalidity findings.
Hafeman accused more than 40 LG Android-powered devices of infringing via their implementation of the ‘Find My Device’ feature. Accused products included smartphones (LG Wing, Velvet, V60 ThinQ, G8X ThinQ, K-series, Stylo-series), tablets (LG GPad 5), and laptops (LG Gram and LG Ultra series). The jury’s verdict cleared all accused models.
Judge Albright’s Final Judgment dismissed with prejudice all claims in the asserted patents that were named in Hafeman’s First Amended Complaint but not taken to trial as asserted claims. This broader dismissal forecloses re-assertion of those claims against LG and may affect Hafeman’s ability to assert related claims against third parties under issue-preclusion doctrines.
The question of costs remained open at case close. Judge Albright’s Final Judgment ordered the parties to brief LG’s entitlement to costs and the amount, if any, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 and Local Civil Rule 54. Whether LG pursues a § 285 exceptional-case fee motion has not been disclosed in the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.