Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, case number 2:25-cv-00070, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. ("Wilus") against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung"). Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. is identified as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a South Korean multinational manufacturing conglomerate known for a wide range of electronics and appliances, while Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is its U.S. subsidiary, engaged in the distribution and sale of these products. The lawsuit alleges that Samsung's products or services infringe U.S. Patent 10,911,186. A one-line technical sketch of patent 10911186 is not yet available from the provided search results and would require a direct review of the patent document.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, and is assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The Eastern District of Texas is widely recognized as a "rocket docket" for patent cases, known for its plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, accelerated trial schedules, and a jury pool historically perceived as sympathetic to patent holders. This venue has long been a preferred forum for patent owners, including NPEs, due to its efficient, though demanding, litigation process. This particular case was filed on January 23, 2025, and was subsequently consolidated on March 25, 2025, with a related case, 2:25-cv-00069, also involving Wilus as the plaintiff. The consolidated cases are currently set for trial on August 17, 2026.

The notability of this case stems from several factors. Firstly, it involves a prominent technology company, Samsung, as a defendant, which often signifies high-stakes litigation due to the potential for substantial damages and impact on widely distributed products. Secondly, the plaintiff being an NPE, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc., highlights a common trend in patent litigation where entities primarily focused on patent assertion leverage their intellectual property against operating companies. Furthermore, the case is linked to an Inter Partes Review (IPR), as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed an IPR petition (IPR2025-01165) challenging the patent, underscoring the ongoing parallel proceedings that frequently accompany patent infringement suits in the Eastern District of Texas. The Eastern District of Texas's reputation for refusing to stay patent litigation pending USPTO reexamination or IPR decisions, coupled with its general reluctance to transfer cases to other venues, adds a layer of strategic importance to proceedings in this court.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00070 (E.D. Tex.)

This patent infringement case, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, concerns U.S. Patent No. 10,911,186 and is currently in active litigation with a scheduled trial date in August 2026. The case has seen several key developments, including consolidation with a related action and the initiation of a parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Key Legal Developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2025-01-23): Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. initiated the lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:25-cv-00070.

Pre-trial Motions & Consolidation:

• Cases Consolidated (2025-03-25): The case 2:25-cv-00070 was consolidated with a related case, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. HP Inc. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00069), with the latter designated as the lead case (2:25-cv-00069-JRG-RSP). Both cases are presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Discovery Milestones:

• Infringement Contentions Served (2025-05-14): Plaintiff Wilus served its infringement contentions.
• Invalidity Contentions Served (2025-07-09): Defendants served their invalidity contentions.
• Document Production & Fact Discovery (through 2026-03-30): The parties were scheduled to substantially complete document production by January 15, 2026, and conclude fact discovery by March 30, 2026.

Claim Construction (Markman):

• Claim Construction Proposals (October-November 2025): The parties were set to exchange claim construction proposals during this period.
• Claim Construction Briefing (January 2026): Briefing on claim construction issues was scheduled for January 2026.
• Markman Hearing (2026-02-26): A Markman (claim construction) hearing was scheduled for February 26, 2026. The specific outcome or order from this hearing is not publicly available through the conducted search.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR Petition Filed for US Patent 10911186 (2025-06-24): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01111, challenging claims 1-18 of the asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,911,186 B2.
• Patent Owner Preliminary Response & Supplemental Brief: Wilus (Patent Owner in the IPR) filed a preliminary response and a supplemental brief in the IPR proceeding.
• Petitioner Opposition Brief: Samsung (Petitioner in the IPR) filed an opposition brief.
• Request for Discretionary Denial (2025-08-25): Wilus filed a Request for Discretionary Denial of the IPR petition, citing factors such as the advanced stage of the co-pending district court litigation and the scheduled trial date.
• Trial Date Before IPR Final Decision: The district court trial is scheduled for August 17, 2026, which is notably several months before the likely Final Written Decision date in the IPR proceeding, anticipated around January 12, 2027 (based on analogous IPR proceedings mentioned in court documents, although a specific FWD date for IPR2025-01111 has not been explicitly stated in the public records found). This timing often weighs against the PTAB granting a stay of the district court case.

Current Posture:

• Trial Set (2026-08-17): The consolidated litigation is set for a jury trial on August 17, 2026. This trial date is considered firm and "cannot be changed without an acceptable showing of good cause."

At present, the case remains active in the Eastern District of Texas, proceeding towards its scheduled trial date. The outcome of the February 26, 2026 Markman hearing is a critical, but not yet publicly available, development that will shape the remainder of the litigation. The PTAB proceeding on patent 10911186 is ongoing, with a decision on institution likely having occurred or imminent following the preliminary responses and discretionary denial arguments.

This patent infringement case, 2:25-cv-00070, was filed in the Texas Eastern District Court by plaintiff Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. against Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al.. The case was later consolidated into lead case 2:25-cv-00069-JRG-RSP in the Eastern District of Texas on March 25, 2025.

The counsel of record representing Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. are primarily from the firm Russ August & Kabat, with an office in Los Angeles, California.

Here is the identified counsel for the plaintiff:

• Marc A. Fenster

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from common practice in such firms for named partners in IP)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Marc A. Fenster is a highly regarded patent litigator, known for representing patent holders in complex disputes and having secured significant verdicts and settlements in intellectual property cases.

• Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Reza Mirzaie has extensive experience in patent litigation, focusing on complex technology disputes across various industries.

• Jacob Buczko

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Jacob Buczko's practice areas include patent and intellectual property litigation, representing clients in district courts nationwide.

• Adam S. Hoffman

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Adam S. Hoffman specializes in patent litigation and other intellectual property matters, handling cases involving various technologies.

• Neil Alan Rubin

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Neil Alan Rubin is involved in intellectual property litigation, including patent, copyright, and trademark disputes.

• Jonathan Ma

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Jonathan Ma focuses on patent litigation, representing clients in various technology sectors.

• Dale Chang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Dale Chang's practice includes intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on patent matters.

No specific local counsel has been explicitly identified in the available search results for Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. for this case, although it is common for firms outside of the Eastern District of Texas to engage local counsel. The provided search results primarily list the Los Angeles-based Russ August & Kabat attorneys.

The defendants in this patent infringement case, 2:25-cv-00070, are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung").

As of the current date, publicly available search results from PacerMonitor and Unified Patents identify attorneys from Russ August & Kabat as representing the plaintiff, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.. While court documents show filings made by "Defendants Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.," they generally refer to "Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc." without explicitly naming the individual counsel of record or their firms in the provided snippets.

Therefore, based on the current search, the specific counsel of record, their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience for the defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., have not yet been fully identified. Further, direct access to PACER to review appearance filings (e.g., Notice of Appearance) would be necessary to definitively identify defendant's counsel.