Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Panoptis Patent Management, LLC
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:24-cv-04708
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Huawei Technologies v. Panoptis Patent Management, Judge Hellerstein denied most sealing and ordered a corrected ownership disclosure by August 4, 2025.
PanOptis Patent Management, LLC and the added counterclaim plaintiffs must provide corrected ownership disclosures; individual owners may have information redacted, while other owners may not.
What happened
In Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Panoptis Patent Management, LLC, the court found that PanOptis’s required ownership disclosure was still incomplete. The disclosure identified other limited liability companies as owning entities, but the court said those entities were not legally recognized entities for this purpose.
The court denied the motion to seal except for information about individuals. It allowed redactions only for individual owners and said the other owners were presumed to have public filings. The court also required the amended disclosure to identify the owners of each added counterclaim plaintiff separately and clearly, continuing through each ownership layer until all legally recognized entities were disclosed.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein ordered PanOptis to file an amended disclosure statement by August 4, 2025, and directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No. 97.
The detailed version
- Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Panoptis Patent Management, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-04708
- Alvin Hellerstein
- July 31, 2025
Background
The court reviewed Defendant PanOptis Patent Management, LLC’s disclosure statement required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1. The court stated that the disclosure remained deficient because the entities identified as owners were other limited liability companies, which the court said were not legally recognized entities for the disclosure’s purpose.
Sealing ruling
The court denied the motion to seal except as to individuals. Redaction was permitted only for individual owners. The court stated that all other owners were presumed to have public filings.
Required correction
For the added counterclaim plaintiffs, the amended disclosure statement had to identify the owners of each suing entity separately and distinctly, continuing through the ownership chain until all legally recognized entities of each owner were disclosed. The court specifically identified H57 Holdings, LLC and Brevet Holdings, LLC as the two limited liability companies at the end of the ownership chain in PanOptis’s disclosure and stated that they were not legally recognized entities for this purpose.
Disposition
The court ordered Defendant to cure the disclosure deficiencies by filing an amended disclosure statement by August 4, 2025. It also directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No. 97.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.