Ultimatepointer v. LG Electronics: Magic Remote Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Ultimatepointer, LLC asserted US11402927B2 — a patent covering pointer-based remote control technology — against LG Electronics’ Magic Remote lineup and compatible OLED and UHD televisions. Filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the case closed after 477 days via a joint dismissal with prejudice, ending Ultimatepointer’s infringement claims permanently.
A pointer-remote patent assertion ends in mutual dismissal in Marshall, Texas
Ultimatepointer, LLC filed suit on October 18, 2022, in the Eastern District of Texas against LG Electronics, Inc. and its U.S. subsidiary, alleging infringement of US11402927B2. The patent — filed under application US17/690883 — relates to pointer-based remote control technology, and Ultimatepointer targeted LG’s commercially prominent Magic Remote controllers (including MR20GA and MR21GA models) along with a broad range of compatible OLED, UHD, and UHD 4K television sets.
The case closed on February 7, 2024, when Judge Rodney Gilstrap granted a joint Rule 41(a)(2) motion. Under the order, Ultimatepointer’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice — meaning they cannot be re-filed — while LG’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving LG’s right to assert those positions in future proceedings. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, with no prevailing-party cost award made.
The 477-day duration and the asymmetric dismissal terms — plaintiff out with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims preserved — are consistent with a negotiated resolution reached after substantive case activity, potentially including claim construction or discovery exchanges. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing arrangement accompanied the dismissal, and the financial terms, if any, remain confidential.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 477 days
477 days — above the ~350-day median for E.D. Texas patent cases that settle pre-trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint order means for each party
Rule 41(a)(2) joint dismissal — what it means
A Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal requires court approval and is final when granted with prejudice. Here, both parties filed jointly, signalling mutual agreement. The court’s order permanently extinguishes Ultimatepointer’s claims against LG on US11402927B2 — those specific claims cannot be re-litigated in any U.S. court. The joint nature of the motion is a strong indicator of a negotiated resolution between the parties.
Claim preclusion applies to plaintiffUltimatepointer’s infringement claims permanently closed
Dismissal with prejudice acts as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Ultimatepointer cannot re-assert US11402927B2 against LG for the same accused products. However, the patent itself remains in force — Ultimatepointer retains the right to assert it against third parties. The no-cost-award clause suggests neither party obtained a clear litigation win sufficient to trigger fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Patent survives; LG claims barredLG’s counterclaims preserved for potential future use
LG’s counterclaims — which typically in patent cases include invalidity and non-infringement declarations — were dismissed without prejudice. This means LG retains the ability to raise those arguments in a future proceeding if needed, such as if Ultimatepointer pursues different accused products or if a licensing dispute resurfaces. The asymmetry is notable and was likely a deliberate negotiated term.
LG’s defences kept openMagic Remote product line faces no injunction risk from this action
With Ultimatepointer’s claims dismissed with prejudice as to LG, the Magic Remote lineup — including MR20GA, MR20GA, and compatible OLED and UHD TV sets — faces no injunctive exposure from this patent in relation to this plaintiff. Competitors or supply-chain partners producing similar pointer-based remote technology should still assess US11402927B2 independently, as the patent remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
No injunction; patent still liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ultimatepointer, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11402927B2 (pointer-based remote control technology)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | LG Electronics, Inc. | Company | LG Electronics, Inc. — global consumer electronics manufacturer; maker of Magic Remote and OLED/UHD TVsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lg Electronics U.S.A., Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Angela Bubis | Attorney | Counsel for Ultimatepointer, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Christian Holohan | Attorney | Counsel for Ultimatepointer, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Charles Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Ultimatepointer, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Sung Cha | Attorney | Counsel for Ultimatepointer, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott R. Bialecki | Attorney | Counsel for Ultimatepointer, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen J. Segall | Attorney | Counsel for Ultimatepointer, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quarles & Brady, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Ultimatepointer, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scheef & Stone LLP (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Ultimatepointer, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sheridan Ross PC | Law Firm | Representing Ultimatepointer, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jerry A. Riedinger | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin Andrew Zeck | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP (Seattle) | Law Firm | Representing LG Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a straightforward grant of a jointly-filed Rule 41(a)(2) motion, with no merits adjudication. The asymmetric relief — plaintiff’s claims extinguished with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims preserved without prejudice — is the operative detail. This structure is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which LG secured permanent immunity from this specific assertion while retaining defensive optionality. The no-fee-shifting term suggests neither party established the ‘exceptional case’ threshold under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US11402927B2 — Pointer-Based Remote Control Interaction Technology
US11402927B2, filed under application number US17/690883, protects technology relating to pointer-based interaction using handheld remote control devices — the type of directional, cursor-driven navigation central to LG’s Magic Remote platform. The patent’s claim scope, as asserted against the MR20GA and MR21GA remotes alongside LG’s OLED and UHD television lines, suggests it addresses the intersection of motion sensing and on-screen pointer control that differentiates premium smart TV remotes from conventional IR devices.
For the consumer electronics sector, this patent represents a strategic asset at a key product differentiation layer. Pointer-based remotes have become a flagship feature for premium television platforms, making patents in this space commercially valuable beyond a single defendant. With the LG case resolved, Ultimatepointer retains a live, granted patent that could be directed at other TV manufacturers, OEM remote suppliers, or streaming device makers employing similar pointing technology. Competitors operating in this space should treat US11402927B2 as an active enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11402927B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating pointer-based or motion-sensing remote control technology into smart TV platforms, streaming devices, or set-top boxes should assess exposure to US11402927B2. The LG dismissal does not create a safe harbour for third parties — the patent is active and its claim scope has not been adjudicated on the merits. OEM remote manufacturers supplying Sony, Samsung, Hisense, or other TV brands are particularly exposed if their products implement on-screen pointer navigation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US11402927B2 against your product architecture, identify overlapping claims in the pointer-control patent landscape, and flag related continuation or family patents that may extend Ultimatepointer’s coverage. Eureka also monitors new filings by the same assignee, enabling in-house IP teams to track assertion activity before litigation is initiated.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11402927B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Remote Control & Smart TV Technology in E.D. Texas
Browse related patent infringement cases involving remote control interfaces, smart TV platforms, and HCI technology litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the smart remote and connected TV IP landscape
This dismissal reflects broader dynamics in pointer-based HCI patent enforcement — where assertion entities target consumer electronics at scale.
Pointer-based remote patents remain an active assertion vector in E.D. Texas
Ultimatepointer’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas — and Judge Gilstrap’s docket specifically — reflects a deliberate venue strategy common among patent assertion entities. Companies in the connected TV and smart remote supply chain should monitor assertion activity around motion-sensing and pointer interaction patents, as US11402927B2 remains enforceable against non-LG targets.
Asymmetric dismissal terms signal a structured resolution, not a walkaway
When plaintiff claims are dropped with prejudice but defendant counterclaims are preserved without prejudice, it typically suggests a negotiated outcome with undisclosed terms — potentially a licensing arrangement. In-house counsel evaluating similar remote-control or HCI patents should treat this outcome as a settlement signal rather than a defendant victory on the merits.
Ultimatepointer v LG — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice as to Ultimatepointer’s claims against LG, and without prejudice as to LG’s counterclaims, pursuant to a joint Rule 41(a)(2) motion granted by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on February 7, 2024. Each party bore its own costs.
Ultimatepointer asserted US11402927B2 (application no. US17/690883), covering pointer-based remote control interaction technology. The accused products included LG Magic Remote models MR20GA and MR21GA, and compatible OLED and UHD television sets.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Ultimatepointer from re-asserting the same claims under US11402927B2 against LG for the same accused products. It functions as a final adjudication for res judicata purposes, though the patent itself remains enforceable against other defendants.
LG’s counterclaims — typically invalidity and non-infringement declarations in patent cases — were preserved by being dismissed without prejudice, meaning LG can re-raise those arguments in future proceedings. This asymmetric outcome was specifically negotiated and reflects a deliberate term in the joint dismissal agreement.
No. The dismissal only resolves claims between Ultimatepointer and LG. US11402927B2 remains a granted, enforceable patent. Other manufacturers of pointer-based or motion-sensing remote control systems — including OEM suppliers and competing TV brands — should conduct independent FTO analysis to assess their exposure to this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.