Truesight Communications LLC v. Hisense Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:26-cv-01007 (E.D. Tex.), is a patent complaint filed November 6, 2026, in the Marshall Division before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with a jury demand. Truesight Communications LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Marshall, Texas. The complaint names five defendants and describes them, on information and belief, as Hisense Co., Ltd. and Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd., each organized under the laws of the People's Republic of China with principal places of business in Qingdao, China; Hisense USA Corporation and Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Company of America Corporation, each organized under the laws of Georgia with principal places of business in Suwanee, Georgia; and Hisense Monterrey Home Appliance Manufacturing, S. de R.L. de C.V., organized under the laws of Mexico with its principal place of business in Salinas Victoria, Mexico (paragraphs 2 to 6). It alleges, on information and belief, that each defendant does business in Texas and in the district (paragraphs 2 to 6) and that Hisense uses, offers for sale, and sells the accused products there, and it says Hisense maintains a place of business in Lewisville, Texas (paragraph 7). It pleads venue under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b), including, for Hisense Co., Ltd., Hisense Visual Technology Co., Ltd., and Hisense Monterrey Home Appliance Manufacturing, S. de R.L. de C.V., the rule that a defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any district (paragraph 15).

The patents and accused products

The complaint asserts four patents that Truesight says it owns: U.S. Patent 8,949,879, titled Access Controls for Known Content, issued February 3, 2015; U.S. Patent 8,898,803, titled Content and Identity Delivery System for Portable Playback of Content and Streaming Service Integration, issued November 25, 2014; U.S. Patent 9,595,300, titled Contextual Chapter Navigation, issued March 14, 2017; and U.S. Patent 8,745,749, titled Virtual Secure Digital Card, issued June 3, 2014. The USPTO copies of the patents list the same titles and issue dates.

The accused products are Hisense smart televisions, with a 2026 Hisense 55-inch Class U7 Series MiniLED QLED UHD 4K HDR Smart Google TV (Model No. 55U7SG) as the example in each count (paragraphs 22 and 29). Count I walks through at least claim 4 of the '879 patent using parental-control content restrictions on that U7 Series television as an example of rating-based media access policies, with a parent setting different rating-based permissions for two viewers who each have their own login (paragraphs 30 to 37). Count II asserts at least claim 1 of the '803 patent against the same television with the Netflix television application, which the complaint says, on information and belief, comes preloaded on the accused products in its entirety or as a stub, alleging that streamed content can be downloaded and saved to the television's SD card or equivalent internal storage along with the user's streaming account information (paragraphs 48 to 53). Count III asserts at least claim 1 of the '300 patent against chapter navigation in the YouTube television application on the U7 Series television, and alleges, on information and belief, that the application works the same way across Google/Android devices (paragraphs 65 to 72). Count IV asserts at least claim 1 of the '749 patent against the U7 Series television, which the complaint alleges, on information and belief, is equipped with an eMMC and/or UFS memory module that generates a virtual secure digital card by reading and storing media key blocks and media identification and by creating separate file systems for secure data and user data (paragraphs 84 to 89). These mappings are Truesight's allegations.

The counts

Each count alleges direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, induced infringement, and contributory infringement under § 271(c). Truesight alleges, on information and belief, that Hisense's direct infringement includes testing, development, troubleshooting, and other use in the United States, and it alleges that the defendants also use the accused products at tradeshows (paragraphs 38, 54, 73, and 90). It pleads knowledge at least as of the date of the complaint and, in the alternative, alleges on information and belief that Hisense was willfully blind through a policy of not reviewing the patents of others (paragraphs 40, 56, 75, and 92). For inducement, it points to user manuals and other instructional materials that, on information and belief, Hisense prepares or directs (paragraphs 41 and 42, 57 and 58, 76 and 77, and 93 and 94).

The prayer asks for a judgment of infringement, a permanent injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 283, damages of at least a reasonable royalty with interest and costs, a finding that the case is exceptional with attorneys' fees under § 285, and further relief. Truesight demands a jury trial.

Docket

The docket through November 6, 2026, lists the complaint, the patent/trademark form, a disclosure statement, notices of attorney appearance, summons requests and summonses as to each named defendant, a clerk's new-suit notice, and a minute entry assigning the case to Judge Gilstrap. The same day, Truesight filed Nos. 2:26-cv-01004, 2:26-cv-01005, 2:26-cv-01006, 2:26-cv-01008, 2:26-cv-01010, and 2:26-cv-01012 (E.D. Tex.), whose complaints assert the same four patents. Truesight also litigated the same four patents in No. 2:23-cv-00643 (E.D. Tex.), which the court dismissed on October 29, 2025. Watch for service on the Hisense defendants and for their answer or Rule 12 motion. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.