Litigation

Untitled case

pending

2026-1625

Patents at issue (1)

10176848

Summary

Appeal from the PTAB Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00867 concerning U.S. 10,176,848. The appellant and appellee roles are not specified in the narrative.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Now let me dig into the Federal Circuit appeal, the PTAB final written decision, and the parallel district court case.

Case overview

Caption (not stated in the metadata): Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.), No. 2026-1625 (Fed. Cir.). One framing correction up front: despite the "infringement litigation" label, No. 2026-1625 is an administrative appeal under the APA from a PTAB final written decision in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2024-00867 — not a district-court case. It is nonetheless a chapter in a much larger infringement war, and the two tracks are tightly coupled.

The parties. Maxell, Ltd. is a Japanese (Osaka) consumer-electronics and energy company — the former Hitachi Maxell — now selling batteries, storage media, projectors and functional materials, and monetizing a large legacy patent portfolio inherited from its Hitachi consumer-electronics business. It is best characterized as an operating company pursuing a licensing-based enforcement program rather than a classic PAE, though its assertions against handset makers (Samsung, Apple, and others) follow NPE-style economics. Samsung Electronics Co. and Samsung Electronics America are the Korean conglomerate and its U.S. subsidiary. The relationship is not arms-length: Samsung was a licensee of Maxell's predecessor Hitachi under a 2011 agreement that expired in 2021 and was never renewed, which is the origin of the whole dispute. [Mayer Brown; MLex]

The technology and patent. U.S. Patent No. 10,176,848 ("Recording and reproducing apparatus and method thereof"), inventor Mari Yoshida, priority May 19, 2008, filed Sept. 5, 2014, issued Jan. 8, 2019, expiring Apr. 27, 2029 (Art Unit 2484). In one line: a video-camera recording/reproduction scheme that runs face recognition on captured video, assigns an importance level to each chapter based on appearances by a user-designated VIP, and then selectively reproduces only chapters with the relevant importance level — i.e., face-tagged, VIP-filtered chapter navigation for long recordings. The patent survived an ex parte reexamination (hence the "B2, C1" designation). Claims 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 84 were challenged in the IPR; Samsung's grounds were § 103 over Nozaki (WO 2007/060980) in view of Haitani (U.S. 9,665,597), with Graham (U.S. 2004/0095376) or Kim (KR 2007/00187068) added for claim 84. The accused products in the parallel suit were Galaxy smartphones and tablets and SmartThings/connected-appliance devices. [PTAB petition and POPR, IPR2024-00867; patent data]

Procedural posture and why the venue/track matters

The IPR was filed May 1, 2024 and instituted Nov. 7, 2024 by a panel of Kevin C. Trock (author), Terrence W. McMillin and Jason W. Melvin. Institution is itself notable: the Board instituted solely on the strength of Samsung's Sotera stipulation (Paper 8, Sept. 12, 2024) without weighing the other Fintiv factors — a decision Maxell twice asked the Director to review (denied Jan. 2, 2025; a second request filed Mar. 10, 2025 after rescission of the Vidal guidance was still pending as of mid-2025). The FWD was entered Nov. 6, 2025, and the matter is now on appeal as No. 2026-1625. [Patexia docket; National Law Review; Director Review denial]

The underlying litigation is Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 5:23-cv-00092-RWS (E.D. Tex., Texarkana Division, Judge Robert W. Schroeder III), filed Sept. 7, 2023. Venue matters enormously here: EDTX gave Maxell a fast track and a jury, and on May 28, 2025 a Texarkana jury found willful infringement of claim 1 of the '086 patent, claims 11 and 12 of the '848 patent, and claims 1, 21 and 24 of the '815 patent, awarding $111.7 million on a 1% running royalty ($38.1M for the '086, **$28.2M for the '848**, ~$45.4M for the '815). That verdict collapsed on Sept. 19, 2025, when Judge Schroeder granted Samsung's JMOL — finding insufficient evidence of infringement on all three patents and invalidating claims in two of them, criticizing Maxell's expert testimony as "conclusory," and denying enhanced damages, interest and an injunction while deferring willfulness/damages pending appeal. Maxell has appealed that JMOL and asked the Federal Circuit to stay its own appeal pending the PTAB proceedings — which is precisely why the outcome in IPR2024-00867 (and thus No. 2026-1625) has outsized leverage. [JMOL/verdict recitation in PTAB filing; DLA Piper; Law360 case page]

Why the case is notable

Three things make this appeal worth watching. First, it is a bellwether in a sprawling, multi-forum campaign: Maxell has pressed Samsung in EDTX (a second suit added in April 2025), at the ITC (Certain Mobile Electronic Devices), in Germany, in Japan, and in a UPC action, generating on the order of two dozen IPR/PGR petitions (one Maxell brief tallies 26; the consolidated EDTX case has run roughly 19–20 patents with staged claim narrowing from 231 claims down to eight for trial). Second, it is a leading test of the post-Fintiv-guidance institution regime: the Board's decision to institute on a bare Sotera stipulation, followed by two Director Review requests and the Director's rescission of the Vidal guidance mid-stream, made IPR2024-00867 a cited example in practitioner commentary on discretionary denial. Third, the market context is license-renewal risk: the entire dispute exists because a decade-old Hitachi–Samsung license lapsed, making this a case study in legacy-portfolio exposure for consumer devices — and the '848's ~$28M slice of the vacated verdict shows how much rides on whether the PTAB's claim-level rulings hold up.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case. Note that the metadata describes a Federal Circuit appeal from a PTAB IPR rather than a district court suit, so I'll search for both the IPR and any underlying district court litigation, then reconcile.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research this. First, let me establish what I can find about the case, the patent, and the underlying IPR — since the prompt's metadata (roles not specified) means I can't assume who the "plaintiff" is.

The IPR is Samsung v. Maxell on the Yoshida '848 patent. Now I need to determine (a) who appealed — i.e., who is the appellant in 2026-1625 — since a PTAB appeal has no "plaintiff," and (b) the Federal Circuit docket and counsel.

Confirmed the parties: Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Fed. Cir. No. 26-1625, appeal from IPR2024-00867. Now let me pull the actual Federal Circuit docket entries to identify counsel of record.

Threshold issue: there is no "plaintiff" in No. 26-1625

Before naming anyone, the framing needs correcting, because it determines whose counsel you actually want.

No. 26-1625 is not a patent infringement case. It is a statutory appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 319 from a Patent Trial & Appeal Board final written decision, so the Federal Circuit docket designates only an appellant and an appellee — no plaintiff or defendant. See the docket summary listing "Appeal From PTO," "Originating Case IPR2024-00867," and showing a blank Appellant/Appellee attorney field pending appearances (Ex Parte CAFC docket 26-1625).

The underlying dispute is Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00092-RWS (E.D. Tex.) (Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III), where Maxell was the plaintiff. The '848 patent was one of seven asserted there; the jury returned a ~$28.2M award on the '848 patent in May 2025, and Judge Schroeder later granted Samsung JMOL of noninfringement on the '848 claims, which is a separate appeal (Fed. Cir. 26-1111). (RPX, Sept. 22, 2025)

So: the "plaintiff" you are looking for is Maxell, and in No. 26-1625 Maxell appears as the appellant. The caption confirms the alignment — Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., filed 04/07/2026, appeal from IPR2024-00867 (Patexia docket summary).

Why Maxell appeals: in IPR2024-00867 (Samsung v. Maxell, FWD Nov. 6, 2025, Paper 43; APJs Trock, McMillin, Melvin, Trock writing), the Board found all seven challenged claims — 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 84 — unpatentable as obvious over Nozaki in view of Haitani, Graham, and Kim, construing "mode" as an operational state (IPR2024-00867 summary; aggregator summary of Paper 43). Maxell had also lost a Director Review request on institution (Paper 17, Jan. 3, 2025; denial by Acting Director Derrick Brent).

Counsel for Maxell (appellant — the party that was plaintiff below)

Attorney Role Firm / office Note
Robert G. Pluta (Reg. No. 50,970) Lead counsel — first-listed attorney for Maxell before the PTAB, and the attorney listed as appellant's attorney on the 26-1625 docket Mayer Brown LLP, 71 S. Wacker Dr., Chicago, IL Registered patent attorney who led Maxell's patent-owner defense in IPR2024-00867 (signed the Jan. 7, 2025 cross-examination notice of Samsung's expert Dr. Benjamin Bederson).
Amanda S. Bonner Of counsel / PTAB team Mayer Brown LLP (listed with the maxell-samsung-service@mayerbrown.com service address) Named on the Board's service list in IPR2024-00867 and in the Director Review order.
Saqib J. Siddiqui (Reg. No. 68,626) Of counsel / PTAB team Mayer Brown LLP, 1999 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. Signed the cross-examination notice as Maxell's counsel; named on the Board service list.
Andrew J. Pincus Appellate counsel (probable) Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, D.C. Filed Maxell's corrected opening brief in the companion appeal Maxell v. Samsung, Fed. Cir. 26-1111 (D.I. 24–26, Mar. 24, 2026). Likely to lead the § 319 appeals as well, but I could not confirm his appearance in 26-1625 specifically.

Sources: Maxell's PTAB filings and the Board/Director service lists (e.g., Paper 18, Patent Owner's Amended Notice of Cross-Examination, Jan. 7, 2025); Director Review denial service list; 26-1111 docket.

In-house: Maxell's IP function is led by Tatsuya Yamamoto, General Manager, IP Innovation Business Unit (Yokohama), who testified as Maxell's corporate licensing witness in the E.D. Tex. case. He is a corporate IP executive, not counsel of record in any of these proceedings.

Counsel for Samsung (appellee)

Attorney Role Firm Note
Gianni Minutoli Lead PTAB counsel for petitioners DLA Piper LLP (US) First-listed petitioner counsel on the Board service list; the Bederson cross-examination was noticed at DLA Piper's 1251 Sixth Ave., New York office, suggesting Minutoli is NY-based (inference, not confirmed).
James Heintz PTAB counsel for petitioners DLA Piper LLP (US) Co-listed on the Board service list and the dla-samsung-maxell@us.dlapiper.com service address.
Stanley Panikowski Appellate counsel DLA Piper LLP (US) Filed the appellees' extension motion (D.I. 27, Apr. 8, 2026) in the companion appeal 26-1111; the likely lead for Samsung in 26-1625.

What I could not verify — read this before relying on the table

  1. The Federal Circuit docket sheet for 26-1625 was not retrievable in this session. I could not open the PACER/Justia docket for 26-1625 to read the actual "Attorney(s) of Record" block, the ECF attorney-appearance entries, or the docket text. My identification of Pluta as appellant's counsel rests on a third-party aggregator (Patexia) and on his role in the IPR below — not on the court's own docket.
  2. PTAB counsel ≠ appellate counsel. Appearance before the Board does not carry over to the Federal Circuit. Bonner, Siddiqui, Minutoli, and Heintz are confirmed only as counsel in the IPR; their appearance in 26-1625 is unconfirmed. Pincus and Panikowski are confirmed as appellate counsel in the sibling appeal 26-1111, which is strong but not conclusive evidence for 26-1625.
  3. No local counsel issue: the Federal Circuit has no local-counsel requirement, so there should be no "local counsel" category here.
  4. Nothing in 26-1625 appears sealed. PTAB filings are public. The sealed material is in the district court case (Judge Schroeder's JMOL opinion reasoning was filed under seal), which is 26-1111's record, not 26-1625's.
  5. Firm office locations for Bonner and Pincus are inferred from Mayer Brown's practice structure; only Pluta's (Chicago) and Siddiqui's (D.C.) addresses are stated in the documents I retrieved.
  6. One-line experience notes are limited to what the record shows — their roles in this Maxell–Samsung campaign. I did not retrieve verified profiles of their other notable cases and am deliberately not characterizing them further rather than guess.
    7

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll start by researching the case and its docket.

Important context emerging: this is a PTAB/IPR appeal, not a district-court infringement action. Let me pin down the appeal and the parties' counsel.

Found the key docket. Let me pull the 26-1625 docket and Samsung's appellate/district counsel.

Threshold correction: 26-1625 is not an infringement case, and it has no "defendants"

Before naming anyone, the premise needs correcting, because it affects who the right attorneys are.

Case 26-1625 is a Federal Circuit appeal from a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement action. The Federal Circuit docket captions it Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., filed April 7, 2026, "Appeal From: PTAB," originating case IPR2024-00867 (U.S. Patent No. 10,176,848). (ex parte CAFC docket summary; Patexia case summary)

Consequently:

  • There are no defendants in 26-1625 — the parties are Appellant Maxell, Ltd. (Patent Owner below) and Appellee Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Petitioners below).
  • Maxell is the appellant because it lost before the Board. The Final Written Decision (Paper 43, Nov. 6, 2025, panel Trock, McMillin, Melvin; opinion by Trock) held all challenged claims 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 84 unpatentable as obvious over Nozaki, Haitani, Graham and Kim. (PTAB docket listing; case summary)
  • The "defendant" label only fits the underlying E.D. Tex. litigation, Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00092-RWS (E.D. Tex.), which is the matter identified in the Board's FWD and which produced the $111.7M jury verdict (May 28, 2025), later overturned on JMOL (Sept. 19, 2025). That separate judgment is on appeal in Fed. Cir. 26-1111 (filed Oct. 29, 2025), where Samsung is formally the Appellee/Defendant. (Justia docket 26-1111)

So the correct answer to your question is: the Samsung entities are the party whose interests are adverse to the patent owner in 26-1625, and they are the defendants in the parallel infringement action. Their counsel follows.

Counsel for Samsung (Appellee / Petitioners below / Defendants in the E.D. Tex. suit)

PTAB counsel of record — IPR2024-00867 (the record that carries into 26-1625)

These names are taken directly from the Board's papers and from Samsung's filed powers of attorney, so they are the best-documented "counsel of record" for the appellee side.

Attorney Role Firm / Office Note
James M. Heintz (Reg. No. 41,828) Lead counsel — named "Lead Counsel" in both Samsung power-of-attorney filings DLA Piper LLP (US), One Fountain Square, 11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300, Reston, VA 20190 Registered PTAB practitioner; DLA Piper's Reston office is its PTAB-focused outpost. He signed the petitioners' discovery papers (e.g., Notice of Deposition of Dr. Balakrishnan, Feb. 24, 2025) and appears in the Board's service block.
Gianni Minutoli (Reg. No. 41,198) Backup counsel; listed first in the Board's "For PETITIONER" service block DLA Piper LLP (US), Reston, VA Named alongside Heintz on the Samsung-side service designation in the Director Review order.
Martin M. Ellison Backup counsel / provisionally recognized PTAB attorney (Paper 16, Jan. 21, 2025, with supporting declaration Ex. 1016) DLA Piper LLP (US), 2000 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 400 North Tower, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Samsung specifically moved to designate him a provisionally recognized PTAB attorney mid-proceeding — an indicator of a substantial speaking/writing role on the Samsung team.
Matthew Bathon In-house — "Principal Legal Counsel," Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; executed the Jan. 21, 2025 powers of attorney Samsung Electronics America, Plano, TX / Ridgefield Park, NJ Not outside litigation counsel; signs as corporate representative on POAs.

Sources: PTAB Director Review denial order (Jan. 2025), service blocks "For PETITIONER: Gianni Minutoli, James Heintz, DLA PIPER LLP (US)" (PTAB document); Samsung Electronics America, Inc.'s Updated Power of Attorney (Jan. 21, 2025) (document); PTAB docket Papers 16–19 (Patexia).

Federal Circuit counsel — what is and isn't confirmed

  • Not confirmed for 26-1625 specifically. The public docket mirrors I could reach (ex parte, Patexia) show only the appellant's attorney of record (Robert G. Pluta, Mayer Brown) and show no counsel entry for the appellee yet. I have not seen a Federal Circuit Form 30 / entry of appearance naming Samsung's appellate counsel in 26-1625, and no opinion or order in 26-1625 has issued.
  • Stanley Panikowski is the verified Samsung-side Federal Circuit attorney on the companion appeal, 26-1111: he filed Samsung's April 8, 2026 unopposed extension motion (Appellees Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.), granted April 10, 2026, pushing the response brief to June 26, 2026. (Justia docket 26-1111) He is a DLA Piper partner (San Diego), which is consistent with DLA Piper's role as Samsung's PTAB counsel here — but I am flagging the extension of his appearance to 26-1625 as an inference, not a documented fact.
  • No "local counsel" exists at the Federal Circuit — that concept applies only in the district court. Samsung's E.D. Tex. local counsel in No. 5:23-cv-00092-RWS is not verifiable from the materials I could reach; I decline to name one.

Related-appeal note (docket hygiene)

The docket in 26-1111 references "Opening briefs in Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., ... 26-1624 and 26-1625 (due August 31, 2026)" — i.e., 26-1624 and 26-1625 are companion PTAB appeals (the Oct. 31, 2025 and Nov. 6, 2025 decisions wiping out claims in two Maxell smart-device patents), with Maxell as appellant in both and briefing scheduled to run in parallel. (CA9 filing referencing the schedule)

For context: opposing (appellant) side in 26-1625

Not asked, but it defines the adversary posture and comes from the same Board record — Mayer Brown LLP for Maxell, Ltd.: Robert G. Pluta (lead; also the sole appellant attorney listed on the 26-1625 docket summary), Amanda S. Bonner, and Saqib J. Siddiqui (service address maxell-samsung-service@mayerbrown.com); Andrew J. Pincus (Mayer Brown, Washington, DC) filed Maxell's Federal Circuit briefs in 26-1111.

Bottom line

  • Who to name as the "defendant" side's counsel: Samsung's PTAB team at DLA Piper — James M. Heintz (lead), Gianni Minutoli, and Martin M. Ellison — with Matthew Bathon in-house at Samsung Electronics America.
  • What I could not verify: (1) any Federal Circuit appearance for Samsung in 26-1625 (none is of record on the dockets I could access, and no merits order has issued); (2) the identity of Samsung's E.D. Tex. local counsel; (3) whether Stanley Panikowski (DLA Piper), who is of record for Samsung in companion appeal 26-1111, will also appear in 26-1625. No filings in 26-1625 appear to be sealed — the gap is simply that the appellee's appearance has not yet been docketed in the sources available to me, which is normal at this stage.