Malikie Innovations Ltd v. Hisense Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (Ireland)
  • Defendant: Hisense Co., Ltd., et al. (China; Mexico)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00288, E.D. Tex., 04/09/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendants are foreign corporations that conduct substantial business in the district, purposefully placing accused products into an international supply chain with the knowledge they will be sold in the United States and the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's smart televisions and other electronic devices infringe four patents related to wireless communications (Wi-Fi), video decoding (AV1), and multimedia device control.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue cover fundamental aspects of modern consumer electronics, including Wi-Fi connectivity standards essential for internet access and video compression standards necessary for high-resolution streaming.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts that two patents-in-suit are essential to the IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) standard and subject to Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations. It details a series of licensing offers made to Hisense beginning in February 2025, which Plaintiffs allege were not negotiated in good faith by Hisense, forming the basis for the willfulness claims. Another patent is alleged to be essential to the AV1 video coding specification.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-05-09	U.S. Patent No. 7,840,631 Priority Date
2004-09-03	U.S. Patent No. 7,453,856 Priority Date
2004-10-12	U.S. Patent No. 7,747,934 Priority Date
2008-11-18	U.S. Patent No. 7,453,856 Issued
2010-06-29	U.S. Patent No. 7,747,934 Issued
2010-11-23	U.S. Patent No. 7,840,631 Issued
2016-02-05	U.S. Patent No. 10,778,989 Priority Date
2020-09-15	U.S. Patent No. 10,778,989 Issued
2025-02-11	Malikie allegedly notifies Hisense of the '989 and '631 Patents
2025-05-22	Malikie allegedly sends follow-up letter to Hisense
2025-06-19	Malikie allegedly provides Hisense with a detailed licensing proposal
2025-09-04	Malikie allegedly notifies Hisense of the '856 and '934 Patents
2026-04-09	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,453,856 - "Method, apparatus, and communications interface for sending and receiving data blocks associated with different multiple access techniques"

Issued November 18, 2008.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of designing a single, flexible air interface for wireless communications that can accommodate a mixture of different multiple access schemes (e.g., FDMA, TDMA, CDMA) within one system ʼ856 Patent, col. 1:59-col. 2:9 Existing standards were often rigid, making it difficult to integrate multiple approaches efficiently.
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a unified signaling method where data from different users, potentially using different access schemes, is processed into "discrete signal blocks" within a common time-frequency plane ʼ856 Patent, abstract These blocks are then grouped into a single packet or time-slot for transmission, allowing a single interface to flexibly manage diverse communication types ʼ856 Patent, col. 2:10-21 This structure is designed to be adaptable to changing channel conditions or user requirements ʼ856 Patent, col. 3:1-10
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a framework for fourth-generation (4G) and later wireless systems to dynamically allocate resources and support various services with different performance requirements on a single network architecture.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 14 Compl. ¶39
• Claim 14 (paraphrased elements): A communications method comprising:
  • Receiving a signal containing signals for multiple user data units, each associated with a multiple access technique that defines how data is processed and allocated in a time-frequency plane.
  • Determining the discrete signal block assignment for each user data unit's technique.
  • Extracting a segment containing signals for desired user data units based on the assignment.
  • Sampling the segment to produce discrete samples.
  • Transforming the discrete samples into frequency domain samples if necessary.
  • Extracting a sample subset for each user data unit from the frequency domain samples.
  • Determining the processing definition (the "first part") of the multiple access technique.
  • Processing the samples according to that technique to extract the user data.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,747,934 - "Method for selecting low density parity check (LDPC) code used for encoding of variable length data"

Issued June 29, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of applying fixed-length, high-performance error correction codes, like LDPC codes, to data packets of variable sizes, which is common in communication systems ʼ934 Patent, col. 2:1-4 Selecting the optimal code from a plurality of available codes with different lengths and rates, while using techniques like "shortening" and "puncturing" to fit the variable data, presents a complex optimization problem to maximize coding gain and minimize transmission overhead ʼ934 Patent, col. 2:5-12
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a systematic method for selecting the most appropriate LDPC code for a given variable-length data packet ʼ934 Patent, abstract The method involves calculating the required number of "shortening" and/or "puncturing" bits for each available base LDPC code and then selecting the code that meets a specified performance criterion, such as minimizing the number of transmission symbols or maximizing coding gain ʼ934 Patent, col. 2:13-21 This allows for flexible and efficient encoding of variable-length data ʼ934 Patent, Fig. 6
• Technical Importance: This method enables the efficient use of powerful LDPC codes in practical systems like Wi-Fi (e.g., IEEE 802.11n), where data packets frequently vary in size, ensuring robust communication without excessive overhead.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4 Compl. ¶46
• Claim 1 (paraphrased elements): A method for selecting an LDPC code for encoding variable sized data, comprising:
  • Providing a plurality of LDPC codes with different codeword lengths and code rates.
  • Calculating a number of shortening bits for each of the LDPC codes.
  • Calculating a number of puncturing bits for each of the LDPC codes.
  • Providing a performance criterion.
  • Determining, in a computer processor, a selected LDPC code from the shortened and punctured codes that meets the performance criterion.
  • Encoding data using the selected LDPC code.
• The complaint asserts dependent claims 2-4.

U.S. Patent No. 10,778,989 - "Rolling intra prediction for image and video coding"

Issued September 15, 2020.

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses inefficiencies in video compression that arise from traditional "directional" intra-prediction methods, which can introduce artifacts or "discontinuities" in the predicted image block ʼ989 Patent, col. 5:1-11 The invention proposes a "rolling intra prediction" process where, after an initial prediction from neighboring pixels, subsequently predicted pixels within the same block are themselves used as inputs to predict other pixels in that block, which can reduce prediction error and improve compression efficiency ʼ989 Patent, col. 5:12-24 ʼ989 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 Compl. ¶53
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Hisense smart televisions supporting the AV1 video decoding standard infringe the patent Compl. ¶53 The complaint notes that template-based rolling intra prediction is a technique mandated by the AV1 specification Compl. ¶14

U.S. Patent No. 7,840,631 - "Multimedia control with one-click device selection"

Issued November 23, 2010.

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem of playing media formats on a mobile device that are poorly suited for its small screen or limited processing power ʼ631 Patent, col. 1:35-40 The invention provides a system where a mobile device can discover a nearby, more capable media device (e.g., a smart TV or PC), delegate playback responsibility for a selected media link to that device with a single click, and then use the mobile device as a remote control for the playback ʼ631 Patent, abstract ʼ631 Patent, col. 2:45-53
• Asserted Claims: At least claim 7 Compl. ¶60
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Hisense smart televisions that pair with and receive playback commands from Bluetooth remote controls infringe the patent Compl. ¶60

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Hisense smart televisions and other devices that are compliant with the IEEE 802.11 Wi-Fi standard, support AV1 video decoding, and/or pair with Bluetooth remote controls Compl. ¶39 Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶53 Compl. ¶60 These are referred to as the ""856 Accused Products," ""934 Accused Products," ""989 Accused Products," and ""631 Accused Products," respectively Compl. ¶39 Compl. ¶46 Compl. ¶53 Compl. ¶60

Functionality and Market Context

• The relevant functionalities of the accused products are their implementation of industry standards. The complaint alleges the products incorporate Wi-Fi modules compliant with IEEE 802.11, which allegedly use carrier sense multiple access (CSMA), downlink multi-user MIMO (DL MU-MIMO), and low-density parity-check (LDPC) operations Compl. ¶39 Compl. ¶46
• The products are also alleged to support AV1 video decoding, a modern video compression standard, for features such as 4K streaming Compl. ¶53 Compl. ¶55
• Finally, the products are described as being bundled with Bluetooth remote controls and providing on-screen prompts for pairing and use Compl. ¶60 Compl. ¶62
• The complaint positions Hisense as a "leading manufacturer and seller of televisions" worldwide, indicating significant market presence Compl. ¶8
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that exemplary claim charts are attached as Exhibits E, F, G, and H, but these exhibits were not included with the filing. The following is a summary of the infringement theories described in the body of the complaint.

'856 Patent Infringement Allegations

• The complaint's central theory is that the accused Hisense smart televisions infringe claim 14 of the '856 Patent because they are compliant with the IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) standard Compl. ¶39 The allegations suggest that by implementing the standard, which includes functionalities like CSMA and DL MU-MIMO, the devices necessarily practice the claimed method for receiving and processing data that uses different multiple access techniques within a unified framework Compl. ¶39 The infringement argument appears to be one of standard-essentiality, where compliance with the standard is alleged to constitute infringement of the patent.

'934 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Similar to the '856 Patent, the infringement theory for the '934 Patent is based on the accused products' compliance with the IEEE 802.11 standard Compl. ¶46 The complaint alleges that these devices perform low-density parity-check (LDPC) operations as part of their Wi-Fi functionality Compl. ¶46 The core of the allegation is that in order to implement LDPC for the variable-length data packets used in Wi-Fi communications, the devices must necessarily perform the claimed method of selecting an appropriate LDPC code based on a performance criterion, thereby infringing claims 1-4 of the '934 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question for both the '856 and '934 Patents will be whether compliance with the IEEE 802.11 standard, as implemented in the accused products, requires practicing every element of the asserted claims. The court may need to determine if the standard allows for non-infringing alternatives. For the '631 patent, a key question may be whether a bundled Bluetooth remote control that sends playback commands to a television falls within the scope of a system where a separate mobile device "delegates" playback responsibility.
• Technical Questions: For the '989 Patent, a key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that Hisense's implementation of the AV1 decoding standard practices the specific "rolling intra prediction" method as claimed, particularly the step of using newly predicted pixels as inputs for other pixels in the same block. For the '934 Patent, a factual question is what "performance criterion" the accused devices use to select LDPC codes and whether it aligns with the criterion required by the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '856 Patent

• The Term: "multiple access techniques" (Claim 14)
• Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the claim. The infringement theory depends on showing that the accused devices process signals associated with various "techniques" (e.g., CSMA, DL MU-MIMO). The definition of this term will determine whether different operational modes within a single standard (like Wi-Fi) qualify as distinct "techniques" as contemplated by the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification lists broad categories like "FDMA techniques, TDMA techniques, and CDMA techniques" and provides specific examples like "OFDM, OFCDM, and Interleaved-FDMA (IFDMA)" ʼ856 Patent, col. 2:47-54 This could support an interpretation that "technique" refers to any distinct method of allocating time-frequency resources.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background focuses on integrating fundamentally different systems like 1G (FDMA), 2G (TDMA), and 3G (CDMA) ʼ856 Patent, col. 1:32-41 A defendant may argue the term is limited to these major, distinct classes of access schemes, not sub-modes within a single, unified standard like IEEE 802.11.

For the '934 Patent

• The Term: "performance criterion" (Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: The claim requires selecting an LDPC code that meets a "performance criterion." Infringement hinges on showing that the accused devices make such a selection based on a qualifying criterion. Practitioners may focus on this term because its breadth is undefined in the claim itself, making its construction critical to the scope of the method.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention states the goal is to select a codeword "meeting a certain performance criteria" without limitation ʼ934 Patent, col. 2:18-21 This suggests the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any metric related to performance (e.g., speed, error rate, efficiency).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of objectives, such as keeping "coding gain as high as possible," using "as few modulated symbols as possible," and keeping "overall complexity at a reasonable level" ʼ934 Patent, col. 6:30-49 A defendant might argue that the "performance criterion" must be one of these specific, explicitly disclosed technical trade-offs, rather than any arbitrary metric.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents. It claims Hisense encourages infringement by providing user manuals, setup instructions, and advertising for the infringing features, such as Wi-Fi connectivity, 4K streaming with AV1, and pairing Bluetooth remotes Compl. ¶41 Compl. ¶48 Compl. ¶55 Compl. ¶62 Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on Hisense supplying material components (e.g., Wi-Fi modules, AV1 decoders) that are not staple articles of commerce and are known to be used for infringement Compl. ¶42 Compl. ¶49 Compl. ¶56 Compl. ¶63

Willful Infringement

• Willfulness is alleged for all four patents based on Hisense's alleged failure to take a license after receiving notice Compl. ¶43 Compl. ¶50 Compl. ¶57 Compl. ¶64 The complaint provides specific notice dates for each patent, beginning in February 2025 and September 2025, and details follow-up communications and licensing proposals that were allegedly ignored or rejected in bad faith Compl. ¶23-25

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of standard-essentiality: will Plaintiffs be able to demonstrate that compliance with the IEEE 802.11 and AV1 standards, as implemented in Hisense's products, necessarily requires practicing the methods claimed in the '856, '934, and '989 patents, or can Hisense show that the standards permit non-infringing design choices?
• A second central question will concern claim construction: can the term "multiple access techniques" in the '856 patent be construed to cover different operational modes within the single Wi-Fi standard, and can the method of delegating control to a "media device" in the '631 patent read on the operation of a television bundled with its own dedicated remote control?
• A third key issue, stemming from the FRAND allegations for the Wi-Fi patents, will be the conduct of the parties during licensing negotiations: did Hisense fail to negotiate in good faith as alleged by Plaintiffs, potentially supporting a finding of willful infringement, or will the evidence show that Plaintiffs' licensing offers were not consistent with their FRAND obligations?