Untitled case

I'll research this case carefully. Note the request describes it as "patent infringement litigation," but the metadata says this is a Federal Circuit appeal from an IPR Final Written Decision — I'll verify the actual posture.

Correction to the framing first

The docket you've given me (Fed. Cir. No. 26‑1623) is not the infringement case — it is Maxell's appeal of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00735, docketed April 7, 2026, with Maxell, Ltd. as appellant and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) as appellees (docket summary; Patexia). The underlying infringement action is Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 5:23‑cv‑00092‑RWS (E.D. Tex., Texarkana Div.), and it has its own separate appeal, Fed. Cir. No. 26‑1111 (filed Oct. 29, 2025). Everything below ties the IPR appeal to that litigation.

---

Parties. Maxell, Ltd. is a Japanese consumer-electronics manufacturer (Osaka) — batteries, storage media, projectors, and similar products — but the patents here are legacy Hitachi consumer-electronics IP (the entity was Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., renamed Maxell Holdings, Ltd., then Maxell, Ltd.; see the caption in Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. LG Elecs. Inc., Nos. 2023‑2116/‑2117 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2025)). Maxell runs a large, sustained U.S. assertion program (Apple, Lenovo/Motorola, TCL, Vizio, Fandango, LG, Coretronic/Optoma, and Samsung), so it is best characterized as an operating company with a licensing-driven enforcement model rather than a classic NPE — though it behaves like a portfolio monetizer in practice, asserting patents acquired by corporate succession rather than developed by the plaintiff. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are the accused operating companies. Per Korean press reporting, the dispute traces to a 2011 license between Samsung and Hitachi Consumer Electronics that expired in 2021 and was not renewed; Maxell then filed in Germany, Japan and the U.S. (SamMobile) — that commercial narrative is press-sourced, not from a court opinion. Maxell's district-court team is Mayer Brown + Patton Tidwell & Culbertson; Samsung's PTAB/Federal Circuit team is DLA Piper (Robert G. Pluta and Andrew Pincus appear for Maxell on the Federal Circuit dockets; Stanley Panikowski of DLA Piper for Samsung).

The technology and the patents. The patent in this appeal is U.S. 11,017,815 B2, "Editing method and recording and reproducing device" — a hierarchical media-management scheme in which a higher-level "user-defined" management layer lets arbitrary playlists/groups be registered, and removing a video from one user's group does not delete it from the broader library (patent record). The accused functionality in the infringement case was Samsung's Gallery app and the Netflix app on Galaxy smartphones — specifically the "character selection" limitation, which the district court construed as "a letter, number, punctuation mark, or other symbol or control code that is represented to a computer by one unit of information"; Maxell's original complaint also pointed at Quick Share and My Files (RPX's detailed post-trial summary here). For completeness on the broader case: the original complaint pleaded seven patents — the '815, 8,073,161 (network-device belonging determination for smart-home networks — SmartThings), 8,982,086 (touch-panel biometric unlock using finger pad vs. finger end — Samsung Knox fingerprint enrollment), 10,176,848 (face-recognition/chapter importance in recorded images — Gallery), 10,129,590 and 11,445,241 (multiple radio circuits for simultaneous wireless video transfer — Quick Share/Wallet), and 11,223,757 (multi-camera capture triggered by voice/touch — Bixby + Camera). Of those, only three patents and eight claims reached the May 2025 jury.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Judge Robert W. Schroeder III in Texarkana presided over 5:23‑cv‑00092 (filed Sept. 7, 2023; terminated Sept. 26, 2025; docket). On May 28, 2025 a jury found willful infringement of the '086, '848 and '815 patents and awarded $111.7M ($38.1M / $28.2M / $45.4M, roughly a 1% running royalty per patent through trial). On Sept. 18, 2025 Judge Schroeder granted Samsung's JMOL — noninfringement on all three tried patents, invalidity (written description) on the '086 and '815, a conditional new trial on invalidity, with damages/willfulness rulings carried — and released a redacted rationale on Sept. 29, 2025 (RPX, above; Law360 case page). Maxell appealed that ruling in No. 26‑1111 (opening brief Mar. 2026; Samsung's response was extended to June 26, 2026, per the Justia docket). In parallel, Samsung's IPR on all claims 1–15 of the '815 was filed Apr. 19, 2024, instituted Nov. 7, 2024, and decided Oct. 30, 2025 by APJs Melvin (author), McMillin and Trock, holding claims 1–6 and 9–13 unpatentable as obvious over Horn+Baumgartner and Kaplan+Bryant (IPR record).* Maxell sought Director Review on Dec. 1, 2025 (Paper 52), arguing the Board ignored the district court's narrower "character" construction and that the Board's broader reading drove the obviousness result; Samsung's authorized response called the request untimely gamesmanship. The Office denied review by order dated March 3, 2026, leaving the FWD in place (summary) — note some AI-generated case summaries misidentify

I'll research this case across the available sources.

Case identification (correcting the placeholder caption)

The Federal Circuit docket number in the metadata corresponds to Maxell Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2026‑1623 (Fed. Cir.), docketed 2026‑04‑07, an appeal from the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00735 (U.S. Patent No. 11,017,815). The underlying district court case is Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. & Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 5:23‑cv‑00092‑RWS (E.D. Tex., Texarkana Div.) before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III.

Two caveats up front, because they matter for how you read what follows:

1. This is not a single litigation — it is a three-front campaign (E.D. Tex. + ITC + PTAB, plus German and Japanese actions), and the ’815 patent is only one of a dozen-plus Maxell patents in suit. The Federal Circuit appeal you asked about concerns only the PTAB branch.
2. Several key district court orders are sealed (Dkt. 285, 434), and I could not pull the PACER dockets for either 5:23‑cv‑00092 or 2026‑1623 directly. Where I rely on secondary reporting (RPX/Mondaq, Law360, MLex, Texas Lawbook) or on AI-generated docket aggregators, I say so.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

I'll research this docket and the underlying IPR to identify the parties and counsel.

Now let me identify the actual parties and appeal posture, plus the Federal Circuit docket.

Excellent — 26-1623 is Maxell Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Maxell's appeal from IPR2024-00735. Let me pull the actual Federal Circuit docket and the entry of appearance.

Threshold point: there is no "plaintiff" at the Federal Circuit

Appeal No. 2026-1623 is captioned Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., filed April 7, 2026, and is Maxell's appeal from the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00735 (Paper 51, Oct. 30, 2025) holding claims 1–6 and 9–13 of U.S. 11,017,815 unpatentable. Source: Patexia case summary for 2026-1623; ex parte.ai docket record for CAFC 26-1623 ("Filed 04/07/26; Appeal From PTAB; Originating Case IPR2024-00735; Appellant: [Maxell]").

So the party you're asking about is Maxell, Ltd., which (a) was the Patent Owner in the IPR, (b) is the plaintiff in the underlying E.D. Tex. infringement action, Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 5:23-cv-00092 (E.D. Tex., Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, Texarkana Div.), and (c) appears as Appellant here. In the appeal the parties are styled Appellant/Appellee, not plaintiff/defendant.

Counsel of record for Maxell

Confirmed for this appeal (2026-1623):

Confirmed on the companion Maxell appeal (2026-1111) — very likely the same team here, but I could not independently verify each name on the 26-1623 docket:

In Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2026-1111 (Fed. Cir.), Maxell's Entry of Appearance (Dkt. 2, Nov. 12, 2025; amended Dkt. 16, Jan. 6, 2026) lists:

Other counsel in the underlying matters (not Federal Circuit counsel of record)

• Patton Tidwell & Culbertson LLP (Texarkana, TX) — co-counsel with Mayer Brown for Maxell in the E.D. Tex. infringement case and in the later 2026 PTAB decisions. This is the district-court/local-counsel role; there is no "local counsel" requirement at the Federal Circuit.
• PTAB counsel in IPR2024-00735: Maxell was represented by Mayer Brown LLP; Samsung by DLA Piper (per Law360/PTAB reporting summarized at anticipatethis.wordpress.com, Dec. 23, 2025, and lexsummary.com).
• In-house: Maxell's IP function sits in its IP Innovation Business Unit, Yokohama (Tatsuya Yamamoto, General Manager, is the signatory on Maxell's licensing/litigation correspondence, e.g., the July 19, 2021 LG letter filed in Maxell v. LG, 5:23-cv-00152). I could not verify any Maxell in-house attorney entering an appearance in 2026-1623 and will not guess at one.

Sourcing caveats — please read

1. I did not obtain the raw 2026-1623 PACER docket. The Federal Circuit's 26-1623 docket was not retrievable in this session (Justia/PACER link returned only the ex parte.ai stub and a Patexia summary). The single confirmed 26-1623 attorney name — Robert G. Pluta — comes from the Patexia case summary for 2026-1623, which displayed only one "Appellant Attorney" entry and may be truncated.
2. The 2026-1111 team is confirmed from the docket text (Dkt. 2 and Dkt. 16), but that is a different appeal (from Judge Schroeder's JMOL in the infringement case). Because both appeals are Maxell-side, Mayer Brown-staffed, and were filed within months of each other, overlap is highly likely — but if you need the precise 26-1623 roster, the operative documents are the Entry of Appearance and Docketing Statement filed on or about April 21, 2026 (28 days after the April 7, 2026 docketing), which I could not pull.
3. Nothing here is sealed as far as I can tell; this is a public appeal from a public PTAB FWD. The sealed material is in the district court case (Judge Schroeder's Sept. 18, 2025 JMOL order was initially filed under seal, later released in redacted form).
4. Federal Circuit practice does not formally designate "lead counsel" on the docket; the practical lead is whoever signs the briefs as counsel of record. In 26-1111 that was Andrew Pincus; in 26-1623 the Patexia record points to Robert Pluta.

I'll research Samsung's defense team across the three fronts (E.D. Tex. district court, the IPR, and the Federal Circuit appeal).

Good foundation. Now let me pin down the specific IPR2024-00735 counsel designations, the district court roster, and any Texas local counsel.

Now let me confirm Samsung's Federal Circuit appellee counsel and verify the local-counsel firms.

Bottom line

The defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("SEC") and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA") — the same two entities that were the Petitioners in IPR2024-00735 and are the Appellees in Fed. Cir. No. 2026-1623. Their representation is a single integrated DLA Piper LLP (US) team, with Texas co-counsel in the district court and a dedicated PTAB subgroup. This is confirmed by the Chief Judge's own recitation of trial counsel in the Sept. 2025 post-trial rulings, DLA Piper's press releases, the PTAB mandatory notices, and the Texas Lawbook's verdict compilation.

One structural note before the tables: the "counsel of record" differs by forum. PTAB counsel of record in the IPR (Heintz lead, Minutoli and Ellison backup) is a subset of the district-court team, and I could not verify who entered appearance for Samsung on the 2026-1623 Federal Circuit docket. I flag that separately in §5.

---

1. DLA Piper — counsel of record in IPR2024-00735 (the appeal under review)

The '735 Petitioners' counsel designation follows Samsung's standard DLA Piper IPR template: registered practitioners out of the Reston, VA office as lead/backup, plus a Los Angeles associate admitted pro hac vice. The parallel Updated Mandatory Notices in the companion Maxell IPRs (e.g., IPR2024-00867) state the designation expressly, and Minutoli signed the October 10, 2025 sur-reply in '735 itself:

Service in the Maxell/Samsung IPRs runs through the consolidated address dla-samsung-maxell@us.dlapiper.com.

⚠️ Source discrepancy — flagging it rather than resolving it: Heintz's registration number appears as Reg. No. 41,828 in the IPR2024-00867 Updated Mandatory Notices (Jan. 31, 2025) but as "Reg. No. 57,053" in the Ellison designation notice filed in that same IPR on Jan. 21, 2025. One of the two is a typo in the USPTO filings. Do not rely on either without checking the Office's practitioner register.

---

2. DLA Piper — trial team in Maxell v. Samsung, No. 5:23-cv-00092-RWS (E.D. Tex.)

This roster is confirmed twice: DLA Piper's own press release on the JMOL win, and the Texas Lawbook's "Biggest Texas Verdicts of 2025" counsel listing for the case.