iMod Systems LLC v. Hisense Co., Ltd.
Infringement action filed 22 Aug 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 18 May 2026, with US8562149B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8562149B2
- Application no.
- US13/107100
- Case no.
- 2:25-cv-00846
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 22 Aug 2025 – 18 May 2026
- Duration
- 269 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Flexibly connectable digital micromirror device module and projecting apparatus employing same
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Flexibly connectable digital micromirror device module and projecting apparatus employing same
A digital micromirror device module includes a flexible connection device, a digital micromirror device and a connecting interface. The flexible connection device includes a plurality of conducting wires and an external insulation layer, wherein the conducting wires are discretely arranged and encapsulated by the external insulation layer. The digital micromirror device unit is disposed on the external insulation layer of the flexible connection device and electrically connected with the conducting wires of the flexible connection device. The connecting interface is arranged at a lateral end of the flexible connection device and connected with the conducting wires.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 22 Oct 2013
- Earliest priority
- 21 May 2010
- Est. expiry
- 6 Feb 2032
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- HU, CHIA-CHEN · HSU, YUAN-MING
- Classification
- G03B21/20H01R12/00G03B21/26G03B21/16H05K1/00G02F1/00G02F1/1345
- Prosecution counsel
- KIRTON MCCONKIE
- Examiner
- KO, TONY
Parties of record
iMod Systems LLC
- Core tech
- G03B21/20H01R12/00G03B21/26G03B21/16
- Counsel
- Isaac Phillip Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
Hisense Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | iMod Systems LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff iMod Systems LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 6). In the Notice, Plaintiff “dismisses this action with prejudice” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id. at 1). Defendant Hisense Co., Ltd. has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all of Plaintiff’s claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case.”
Case 2:25-cv-00846 · E.D. Tex. · closed 18 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:25-cv-00846?
2:25-cv-00846 is a patent infringement action brought by iMod Systems LLC against Hisense Co., Ltd., filed on 22 Aug 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 18 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:25-cv-00846?
US8562149B2 (“Flexibly connectable digital micromirror device module and projecting apparatus employing same”), assigned to IMOD SYSTEMS LLC, currently active. The record also lists Flexibly connectable digital micromirror device module and projecting apparatus employing same.
How was case 2:25-cv-00846 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice (the “Notice”) filed by Plaintiff iMod Systems LLC (“Plaintiff”). (Dkt. No. 6). In the Notice, Plaintiff “dismisses this action with prejudice” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id. at 1). Defendant Hisense Co., Ltd. has not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment. (Id.). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all of Plaintiff’s claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fee
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:25-cv-00846 take?
269 calendar days, from filing on 22 Aug 2025 to closure on 18 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-00846?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff iMod Systems.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-00846 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.