Hisense v. Baker Laser Technology: Dismissed with Prejudice After 301 Days
Hisense Co., Ltd. filed an infringement action against Baker Laser Technology, LLC in the Massachusetts District Court over US9185373B2, a patent relating to its 4K UHD Smart Laser TV. After 301 days of litigation, the parties resolved their claims and the case was dismissed with prejudice, with each side bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs.
Hisense and Baker Laser resolve 4K laser TV patent clash in Massachusetts
Hisense Co., Ltd. filed this infringement action on 20 June 2025 in the Massachusetts District Court before Judge Leo T. Sorokin, asserting US9185373B2 against Baker Laser Technology, LLC in connection with Hisense's 4K UHD Smart Laser TV. Baker Laser Technology filed counterclaims, making the dispute bilateral. The case involved competing claims and counterclaims for relief between the two parties across a litigation window of 301 days.
The recorded Basis of Termination is Dismissed with Prejudice. The docket order states that Hisense and Baker Laser announced to the Court that they had resolved their respective claims and counterclaims, requested dismissal with prejudice, and that the Court granted that request — ordering all claims and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses borne by each party incurring the same. The specific terms of the underlying resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
A dismissal with prejudice within roughly ten months of filing, before any trial, is consistent with the parties having reached a negotiated resolution — though the precise commercial or licensing terms, if any, are not part of the public record. The bilateral fee-bearing arrangement, with no fee-shifting to either side, suggests neither party was declared a prevailing party. What drove the resolution — whether claim construction risk, commercial pragmatism, or other considerations — is not disclosed.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 301 days
301 days from filing to dismissal in Massachusetts District Court
US9185373B2 — 4K UHD Smart Laser TV display technology
Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising 4K UHD laser TV systems, short-throw laser projectors, or Smart Laser TV products in the US market should assess its exposure to US9185373B2. The patent emerged as a live enforcement asset in federal litigation, and its dismissal with prejudice does not diminish its enforceability against third parties. R&D teams planning product launches or design iterations in the laser display category face an unresolved risk from this patent.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order records a joint announcement by Hisense and Baker Laser that they had resolved their respective claims and counterclaims, followed by a court-ordered dismissal with prejudice on all counts. The with-prejudice designation closes the litigation permanently for both parties at this court. The bilateral fee arrangement — each side bearing its own costs — means no prevailing party was designated. The underlying terms of the resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the resolution means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars re-filing of the same claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes: neither party may re-file the same claims or counterclaims that were asserted in this action. The Court granted the request jointly made by Hisense and Baker Laser, meaning the dismissal reflects a consensual conclusion rather than a unilateral withdrawal. The specific terms underlying the parties' resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
Final — no re-filing permittedHisense's infringement claims ended; US9185373B2 remains in force
Hisense's infringement claims against Baker Laser are permanently closed at this court. US9185373B2 itself is not invalidated by the dismissal and remains an enforceable asset. Hisense bears its own legal costs. Whether any commercial arrangement accompanies the resolution is not reflected in the public record.
Patent survives; claims closedBaker Laser's counterclaims also dismissed with prejudice
Baker Laser Technology's counterclaims — the nature of which are not detailed in the available record — were also dismissed with prejudice under the same order. Baker Laser bears its own attorneys' fees and costs. The bilateral dismissal structure means neither party secured a public judgment in its favour, and no fee-shifting order was entered against either side.
Counterclaims also closedLaser TV patent risk persists for companies operating in this space
US9185373B2 remains a live patent asset following this dismissal. Third parties operating in the 4K UHD laser projection and Smart Laser TV market should note that the patent's enforceability has not been tested or adjudicated on the merits in this proceeding. Companies developing or commercialising laser TV display technology may wish to assess their exposure to this patent independently.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Hisense Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Baker Laser Technology, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Christopher Moulder | Attorney | Counsel for Hisense Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicole Corvini Daly | Attorney | Counsel for Hisense Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrick John McKeever | Attorney | Counsel for Hisense Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen D. Riden | Attorney | Counsel for Hisense Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Beck Reed Riden LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hisense Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hisense Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cortney Alexander | Attorney | Counsel for Baker Laser Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas P. O'Connell | Attorney | Counsel for Baker Laser Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kent & Risley LLC | Law Firm | Representing Baker Laser Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O'Connell Law Office | Law Firm | Representing Baker Laser Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Leo T. Sorokin | Judge | Massachusetts District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the 4K laser TV and display technology space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Hisense v. Baker Laser, covering laser projection, Smart TV display IP, and competitive filing activity.
Hisense's laser TV patent portfolio extends beyond US9185373B2
Hisense is one of the world's largest laser TV manufacturers and holds a significant patent portfolio in laser projection display technology. US9185373B2 is one asserted asset; Hisense's broader filings in laser light source modulation, optical path design, and Smart TV integration suggest an active IP accumulation strategy. Companies in this space should map the full portfolio to understand the enforcement perimeter.
Hisense laser TV portfolioLaser TV patent filing activity is accelerating globally
Short-throw laser projection and Smart Laser TV systems are among the fastest-growing segments in consumer display technology. Patent filings in laser light source design, speckle reduction, and 4K laser scanning have grown across major assignees including Chinese and South Korean display manufacturers. This litigation signals that US enforcement activity in this domain is now active, raising the stakes for product teams operating in the category.
Laser display filing trendsBaker Laser Technology's IP position in laser projection warrants investigation
Baker Laser Technology filed counterclaims in this action, suggesting it holds or asserts its own IP position in laser technology. The nature of those counterclaims is not detailed in the public record. Companies developing laser-based display or projection systems should investigate whether Baker Laser holds independent patent assets that could affect freedom to operate in adjacent product categories.
Baker Laser IP positionDesign-around opportunities exist in laser TV optical and image processing systems
US9185373B2 covers specific aspects of Hisense's 4K UHD Smart Laser TV implementation. R&D teams can use claim mapping to identify design-around paths in laser light source architecture, image processing pipelines, or screen-interaction systems that fall outside the asserted claims. White-space analysis in laser TV optics and AI-driven picture enhancement may offer differentiated innovation pathways.
Laser TV design-around spaceSimilar laser TV and display patent infringement cases in US courts
Cases involving laser projection, Smart TV display patents, and UHD technology enforcement in Massachusetts District Court and comparable US venues.
What this case signals for the laser TV and display IP landscape
A bilateral dismissal with prejudice in a laser TV patent dispute leaves US9185373B2 in force and the sector on notice.
US9185373B2 is still live — third-party FTO work is warranted
Because the case ended without any merits adjudication, the validity and scope of US9185373B2 remain untested. Any company designing or selling 4K UHD laser projection TV systems should treat this patent as an active risk and conduct freedom-to-operate analysis before market entry or product launch.
Bilateral cost-bearing signals a negotiated exit, not a litigation win
The order that each party bears its own fees and costs — with no fee-shifting — is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a concession of liability. Neither party should be characterised as having prevailed. The absence of disclosed terms means the commercial outcome is opaque to the market.
Hisense v Baker — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. On 17 April 2026, Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered an order dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice after the parties announced they had resolved their dispute. Each party bears its own attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The specific terms of the resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
Hisense asserted US9185373B2 (application number US14/562172) in this infringement action. The patent relates to Hisense's 4K UHD Smart Laser TV technology. The case was filed on 20 June 2025 in the Massachusetts District Court.
No. A dismissal with prejudice terminates the litigation between these two parties but does not adjudicate the validity or scope of US9185373B2. The patent remains in force and enforceable against third parties. No court has construed the claims or ruled on validity in this proceeding.
The court order specifies that all attorneys' fees, costs of court, and expenses shall be borne by each party incurring the same. No fee-shifting was ordered against either party, and no prevailing party was designated in the dismissal order.
The docket order confirms that Baker Laser Technology filed counterclaims for relief against Hisense. However, the specific nature of those counterclaims is not detailed in the available public record. All counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice under the same order that dismissed Hisense's infringement claims.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.