Light Guide Innovations LLC v. Hisense Co., Ltd.
Infringement action filed 17 Jan 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 23 Jun 2026, with 16 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case dismissed.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US7922380B2US9638378B2US9534744B2US10030823B2US8267537B2US8616729B2US8052307B2US8213093B2US8237352B2US8723411B2US7936415B2US8480778B2US8395183B2US8506122B2US8823048B2US8562200B2
- Case no.
- 2:25-cv-00051
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Robert W. Schroeder III
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 17 Jan 2025 – 23 Jun 2026
- Duration
- 522 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Dismissed
- Products & marks
- LCD LED, LED, ULED, QLED, MINI-LED ULED, and MINI-LED QLED televisions or displays, including at least the U6, R6, H7, A6, A5, R7, V1, K2, QD7, U7, S7, U9, QD6, A4, and H4 models of products, and components thereof (e.g., backlight components) · LED backlight units, screen, and LED strips · multiple LED strip (i.e., module substrate, shown below) which further comprise connectingterminals at both sides ends
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
Light unit and display device having the same
Provided are a light unit and a display device having the same. The light unit comprises a light guide member, a board, and a light-emitting module. The light guide member outputs surface tight upward. The light-emitting module comprises the board where a light-emitting devices disposed and a metal plate on a rear surface of the board.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 12 Apr 2011
- Earliest priority
- 6 Nov 2007
- Est. expiry
- 6 Feb 2029
- Validity challenges
- 1 on record90015633 · EPR · filed by Unified Patents, LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- PARK, DONG WOOK
- Classification
- F21V7/04
- Prosecution counsel
- Fabricant, Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP
- Examiner
- SHALLENBERGER, JULIE A
Light emitting apparatus
Provided is a light emitting apparatus. The light emitting apparatus includes a substrate; a light emitting device on the substrate; a fluorescent layer formed on the substrate and the light emitting device to surround the light emitting device; an encapsulant resin layer formed on the substrate and the fluorescent layer to surround the fluorescent layer; and a lens disposed on the light emitting device and supported by the substrate, wherein the lens includes a lens body having a first recess formed at a center of a top surface of the lens body and a second recess formed at a center of a bottom surface of the lens body, and a lens supporter provided at the bottom surface of the lens body to support the lens body such that the lens body is spaced apart from the substrate.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 2 May 2017
- Earliest priority
- 20 Nov 2009
- Est. expiry
- 19 Nov 2030
- Validity challenges
- 2 on record90015755 · EPR · filed by Unified Patents LLC90015790 · EPR · filed by Hisense USA Corp.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- LEE, SANG WON · BAK, GYU HYEONG
- Classification
- H01L33/00F21K99/00H01L33/58G02B19/00H01L33/50F21K9/60H01L33/52F21V5/04H01L33/56B82Y20/00H01L33/32F21Y101/00
- Prosecution counsel
- KED & ASSOCIATES, LLP
- Examiner
- JACKSON, JR., JEROME
Also asserted in this case
14 moreThe docket lists 16 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 14 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US9534744B2Light emitting apparatus
- US10030823B2Light emitting apparatus
- US8267537B2Backlight unit and display device having the same
- US8616729B2Lens and light emitting apparatus having the same
- US8052307B2Lens and light emitting apparatus having the same
- US8213093B2Lens and light emitting apparatus having the same
- US8237352B2Photoluminescent sheet
- US8723411B2Photoluminescent sheet
- US7936415B2Light source apparatus and liquid crystal display having the same
- US8480778B2Air cleaner arrangements; components; and, methods
- US8395183B2Light emitting apparatus
- US8506122B2Lens and light emitting apparatus having the same
- US8823048B2Light emitting apparatus
- US8562200B2Lighting module, backlight unit, and display device including the same
Parties of record
Light Guide Innovations LLC
- Core tech
- F21V7/04H01L33/00F21K99/00H01L33/58
- Counsel
- Alfred Ross Fabricant · Henry Metro · Jacob Daniel Ostling · Jodutt Marwan Basrawi · Peter Lambrianakos · Vincent J. Rubino III
- Firm
- Fabricant LLP, Fabricant LLP (Rye), Fabricant, Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP
Hisense Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- John Dudley Esterhay · Joshua L. Raskin · Kathryn Elizabeth Albanese · Nicholas A. Brown · Patrick John McKeever · Scott Joseph Bornstein · Wei Yuan · Wen Xue
- Firm
- Greenberg Traurig LLP (San Francisco), Greenberg Traurig LLP, Perkins Coie, LLP (San Diego), Perkins Coie LLP, Perkins Coie LLP (San Diego)
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Alfred Ross Fabricant | Light Guide Innovations LLC | Plaintiff |
| Henry Metro | Light Guide Innovations LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jacob Daniel Ostling | Light Guide Innovations LLC | Plaintiff |
| Jodutt Marwan Basrawi | Light Guide Innovations LLC | Plaintiff |
| Peter Lambrianakos | Light Guide Innovations LLC | Plaintiff |
| Vincent J. Rubino III | Light Guide Innovations LLC | Plaintiff |
| John Dudley Esterhay | Hisense Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Joshua L. Raskin | Hisense Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Kathryn Elizabeth Albanese | Hisense Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Nicholas A. Brown | Hisense Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Patrick John McKeever | Hisense Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Scott Joseph Bornstein | Hisense Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Wei Yuan | Hisense Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Wen Xue | Hisense Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is Plaintiff Light Guide Innovations LLC and Defendants Hisense Company Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co. Ltd. f/k/a Qingdao Hisense Electronic Co. Ltd., Hisense International Co. Ltd., Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investments Co. Ltd., Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. de C.V., and Hisense International (HK) Co. Ltd.’s (collectively, “Hisense”) Joint Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 103) and Plaintiff Light Guide Innovations LLC and Defendants TCT Mobile International Limited, TCL Electronics Holdings Limited, TCL Technology Group Corporation, TCL Communication Limited, and TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited’s (collectively, “TCT”) Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Docket No. 104). Case 2:25-cv-00051-RWS Document 20 Filed 06/23/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 268 Plaintiff represents that it resolved its claims against Hisense in this case and requests that its claims be dismissed with prejudice and Hisense’s defenses against Plaintiff be dismissed without prejudice. Docket No. 103 at 1. Plaintiff and TCT represent they “have settled all their respective claims for relief asserted in this litigation.” Docket No. 104 at 1. Plaintiff requests that the Court dismiss its claims against Defendant with prejudice. After review, the motion (Docket No. 103) is GRANTED and the notice (Docket No. 104) is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that Hisense’s defenses in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses. It is further ORDERED that all pending motions in the lead case No. 2:25-CV-312 and member cases 2:25-CV-00051 and 2:24-CV-00646 are DENIED-AS-MOOT. As the Defendant in the above-captioned lead case has been terminated (Docket No. 77) the Clerk of Court is directed to close the lead case No. 2:25-CV-312 and member cases 2:25-CV00051 and 2:24-CV-00646.”
Case 2:25-cv-00051 · E.D. Tex. · closed 23 June 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-00051?
2:25-cv-00051 is a patent infringement action brought by Light Guide Innovations LLC against Hisense Co., Ltd., filed on 17 Jan 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 23 June 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 2:25-cv-00051?
US7922380B2 (“Light unit and display device having the same”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC, currently active; US9638378B2 (“Light emitting apparatus”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC, currently active; US9534744B2 (“Light emitting apparatus”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC; US10030823B2 (“Light emitting apparatus”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC; US8267537B2 (“Backlight unit and display device having the same”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC; US8616729B2 (“Lens and light emitting apparatus having the same”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC; US8052307B2 (“Lens and light emitting apparatus having the same”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC; US8213093B2 (“Lens and light emitting apparatus having the same”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC; US8237352B2 (“Photoluminescent sheet”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC; US8723411B2 (“Photoluminescent sheet”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC; US7936415B2 (“Light source apparatus and liquid crystal display having the same”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC; US8480778B2 (“Air cleaner arrangements; components; and, methods”), assigned to DONALDSON COMPANY, INC.; US8395183B2 (“Light emitting apparatus”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC; US8506122B2 (“Lens and light emitting apparatus having the same”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC; US8823048B2 (“Light emitting apparatus”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC; US8562200B2 (“Lighting module, backlight unit, and display device including the same”), assigned to LIGHT GUIDE INNOVATIONS LLC. The record also lists LCD LED, LED, ULED, QLED, MINI-LED ULED, and MINI-LED QLED televisions or displays, including at least the U6, R6, H7, A6, A5, R7, V1, K2, QD7, U7, S7, U9, QD6, A4, and H4 models of products, and components thereof (e.g., backlight components), LED backlight units, screen, and LED strips and multiple LED strip (i.e., module substrate, shown below) which further comprise connectingterminals at both sides ends.
How was case 2:25-cv-00051 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case dismissed. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is Plaintiff Light Guide Innovations LLC and Defendants Hisense Company Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co. Ltd. f/k/a Qingdao Hisense Electronic Co. Ltd., Hisense International Co. Ltd., Hisense International (Hong Kong) America Investments Co. Ltd., Hisense Electronica Mexico S.A. de C.V., and Hisense International (HK) Co. Ltd.’s (collectively, “Hisense”) Joint Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 103) and Plaintiff Light Guide Innovations LLC and Defendants TCT Mobile International Limited, TCL Electronics Holdings Limited, TCL Technology Group Corporation, TCL Communication Lim
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-00051 take?
522 calendar days, from filing on 17 Jan 2025 to closure on 23 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-00051?
Chief Judge Robert W. Schroeder III presided. Alfred Ross Fabricant, Henry Metro, Jacob Daniel Ostling, Jodutt Marwan Basrawi, Peter Lambrianakos and Vincent J. Rubino III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Light Guide Innovations. John Dudley Esterhay, Joshua L. Raskin, Kathryn Elizabeth Albanese, Nicholas A. Brown, Patrick John McKeever, Scott Joseph Bornstein, Wei Yuan and Wen Xue appear for defendant Hisense.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-00051 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.