Case Background
Phenix Longhorn LLC ("Phenix"), a Texas-based patent-holding company, filed a patent infringement lawsuit on October 10, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The case assigned Civil Action No. 2:23-CV-477-RWS-RSP, targeted AU Optronics Corporation ("AUO"), a Taiwanese LCD panel manufacturer, along with Hisense Electronica Mexico, Hisense USA Corporation, and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively "Hisense"). The case went to a jury trial presided over by Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
Cause
Phenix accused the Defendants of infringing two U.S. patents U.S. Patent No. 7,233,305 ("the '305 Patent") and U.S. Patent No. 7,557,788 ("the '788 Patent") both titled "Gamma Reference Voltage Generator." These patents, originally assigned to Alta Analog, Inc., a Silicon Valley semiconductor startup co-founded by inventor Richard V. Orlando, covered a programmable integrated circuit known as a "Pgamma chip." This chip calibrated LCD panels by generating gamma correction reference voltages, replacing older manual resistor-based methods with a streamlined, automated solution that improved display picture quality and cut manufacturing costs.
Injury
Phenix alleged that AUO manufactured LCD panel modules containing the patented Pgamma technology and sold them to Hisense Visual, which then supplied them to Hisense Mexico for assembly into finished television sets exported to the United States under the Hisense brand. Phenix argued this supply chain constituted direct infringement by Hisense entities and induced infringement by AUO, which Phenix claimed knew about the patents since at least 2007 through direct dealings with Alta Analog. Phenix also accused AUO of infringing the '788 Patent process claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), arguing AUO's panels were made using the patented calibration method.
Damages Sought
Phenix sought a reasonable royalty for the Defendants' alleged infringement, enhanced (treble) damages for willful infringement, a permanent injunction barring future infringement, and attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: Phenix Longhorn LLC
· Counsel for Plaintiff: Eric H. Findlay | Fabio E. Marino | Steven M. Levitan | Rodney Miller | Kate Johnson | Nicolas S. Gikkas | Alexander Wharton | Andrea A. Anderson | Daniel Attaway | Ian O'Keef | John Benedict Bourke | John Horton Wright, III | Katherine Lange Johnson | Luke Verrill Cass | Roger Brian Craft | Steven Mark Levitan
Defendants: AU Optronics Corporation | Hisense Electronica Mexico, S.A. de C.V | Hisense USA Corporation | Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd.
· Counsel for Defendants (Hisense): Matias Ferrario | Kasey E. Koballa | Zoe Stendara | Marvin Craig Tyler | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Andrew Kalamarides | Emily J Greb | Harry Lee Gillam , Jr | Helena E.D. Burns James Travis Underwood | Janice Le Ta | Jaymin Patel | Jessica Delacenserie | Jonathan Irvin Tietz | Martin E Gilmore | Melissa Richards Smith | Rachel Dalafave | Riley Weston Zoch | Ruben Tyler Kendrick | Runkun Jiang | Teeanna Brisco
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Phenix contended that AUO was aware of both patents for over a decade before the lawsuit. According to the complaint, Alta Analog engaged AUO engineers multiple times between 2003 and 2008 about the Pgamma chip technology. In November 2007, Alta presented a PowerPoint to AUO that specifically identified the '305 Patent. In June 2012, AUO received product data sheets listing both patents. Despite this knowledge, AUO declined to license the technology and continued manufacturing the accused panels.
Claims
Phenix asserted Claims 1 and 2 of the '305 Patent and Claim 1 of the '788 Patent. The '305 Patent covered an integrated circuit apparatus for producing gamma reference voltage signals using non-volatile storage cells organized into switchable banks. The '788 Patent covered a method of calibrating an LCD display to a desired gamma curve using optical sensors, a separate control circuit, and optimization algorithms — all separate from the display itself. Phenix brought direct infringement claims against Hisense under § 271(a), induced infringement claims against AUO under § 271(b), and process patent infringement claims against AUO under § 271(g).
Defense
The Hisense Defendants denied all infringement allegations and raised multiple affirmative defenses. They argued the asserted patent claims were invalid for failure to meet patentability requirements, including lack of adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. They raised prosecution history estoppel, contending Phenix was barred from asserting broad claim interpretations. Hisense further argued that Phenix failed to properly mark products under § 287 and that damages should be limited. AUO filed a counterclaim challenging patent validity.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned its unanimous verdict on January 23, 2026, delivering a complete defense victory across all nine questions on the verdict form.
'305 Patent Infringement
On Question 1, the jury found that Phenix did not prove AUO directly infringed the '305 Patent under § 271(a) for either Claim 1 or Claim 2. On Question 2, the jury reached the same conclusion for the Hisense Defendants no direct infringement of Claims 1 or 2. On Question 3, the jury found AUO did not actively induce others to infringe the '305 Patent after receiving notice of the lawsuit on November 20, 2023, for either claim. On Question 4, the jury likewise found that Hisense Mexico and Hisense Visual did not induce infringement of the '305 Patent after their respective notification dates of May 15, 2024, and December 5, 2024.
'305 Patent Invalidity
On Question 5, the jury found by clear and convincing evidence that Claims 1 and 2 of the '305 Patent lacked adequate written description in the specification, rendering both claims invalid. This was a significant win for the Defendants.
'788 Patent Infringement
On Question 6, the jury found that Phenix did not prove AUO directly infringed Claim 1 of the '788 Patent under § 271(g) — the provision covering products made by a patented process that are imported into or sold within the United States.
'788 Patent Invalidity
On Question 7, the jury found in favor of Phenix, ruling that the Defendants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Claim 1 of the '788 Patent lacked adequate written description. The '788 Patent survived the invalidity challenge. The jury foreperson signed the verdict form on January 23, 2026.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
