Untitled case

Case Overview: Maxell v. Samsung (ITC 337-TA-1432)

This investigation, 337-TA-1432, before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), involves Maxell, Ltd., a Japanese operating company, as the Complainant, asserting patent infringement against [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., both operating companies. The accused products are "certain mobile electronic devices," which include various consumer electronics such as laptops, smartphones, and tablets, imported into and sold within the United States.

The investigation asserts infringement of six U.S. patents. These include U.S. Patent No. 8,130,280, generally related to a method and apparatus for displaying digital broadcast content; U.S. Patent No. 11,490,004, which describes a multilayered substrate and its manufacturing method; U.S. Patent No. 11,750,915, covering an optical film, polarizing plate, and display device; U.S. Patent No. 11,509,953, directed to a method for driving a display device and the display device itself; U.S. Patent No. 12,108,103, concerning a laminate, optical film, polarizing plate, and display device; and U.S. Patent No. 11,445,241, which details a method for controlling a display device and the display device.

The procedural posture is an active Section 337 investigation at the International Trade Commission. The ITC instituted the investigation on January 23, 2025, with an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) presiding over the evidentiary hearing. The target date for completion of the investigation was extended to October 15, 2026, due to a federal government shutdown. This venue is significant because the ITC offers swift resolution, typically within 15-18 months, and the powerful remedy of an exclusion order, which can block infringing products from entering the U.S. market, along with cease-and-desist orders. Unlike federal district courts, the ITC cannot award monetary damages. The case is notable as it involves two major global electronics companies, Maxell and Samsung, in a dispute over key components and features in widely sold mobile electronic devices, potentially impacting the supply and availability of such products in the U.S. market.

This case, International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-1432, concerns allegations of patent infringement related to certain mobile electronic devices. Maxell, Ltd. initiated the investigation against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,445,241, among others. The investigation is currently pending before the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2024-12-17: Maxell, Ltd. of Otokuni-gun, Kyoto, Japan, filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), alleging violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
  • 2024-12-26 & 2025-01-06: Maxell filed supplements to the complaint.
  • 2025-01-17 (or 2025-01-23): The USITC voted to institute the investigation, identifying Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Suwon-shi, South Korea) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Ridgefield Park, NJ) as respondents. The investigation initially involved U.S. Patent Nos. 8,130,280; 11,490,004; 11,750,915; 11,509,953; 12,108,103; and 11,445,241 (the '241 patent). The official notice of institution was published on January 27, 2025, with an effective date of January 23, 2025.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • 2025-02-06: Maxell filed a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add infringement allegations for claims 15 and 24 of the '241 patent, citing a clerical error in the initial notice.
  • 2025-02-18: Samsung opposed Maxell's motion to amend.
  • 2025-02-21: The ALJ issued an Initial Determination (Order No. 6) granting Maxell's motion to amend.
  • 2025-03-10: The Commission determined not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 6), thereby officially amending the complaint and notice of investigation to include claims 15 and 24 of the '241 patent.
  • 2025-09-25: The Commission granted in part Maxell's motion for summary determination, ruling that Samsung could not sustain its prosecution laches defense. This was based on the ALJ's Order No. 18 (issued September 2, 2025), which the Commission determined not to review.
  • 2025-11-14: The ALJ issued an Initial Determination (Order No. 23) extending the target date for completion of the investigation to October 15, 2026, due to a federal government shutdown.
  • 2025-12-04: The Commission determined not to review the ALJ's ID (Order No. 23), officially extending the target date for the investigation to October 15, 2026. The ID also stated that the final Initial Determination was expected to issue by June 15, 2026.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • Specific details of a separate Markman order or claim construction hearing are not publicly detailed in the provided sources. However, claim construction would have been part of the pre-hearing proceedings before the evidentiary hearing.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • No specific strategic discovery milestones are highlighted in the available information, beyond the general progression of the ITC investigation.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • 2026-02-09 to 2026-02-13: An evidentiary hearing (trial) was held.
  • As of 2026-06-17, the investigation is "Pending before the ALJ," indicating that the Initial Determination following the evidentiary hearing has not yet been issued. The Initial Determination was initially expected by June 15, 2026.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The investigation is active, and no final disposition has been reached. The current target date for the overall completion of the investigation has been extended to November 4, 2026.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search of public databases for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) does not indicate any Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings currently instituted or completed against U.S. Patent No. 11,445,241.

Maxell, Ltd. is the complainant in this investigation before the International Trade Commission (ITC), case number 337-TA-1432. The following counsel represents Maxell, Ltd.:

• Jamie Benjamin Beaber (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Mayer Brown LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: Jamie Beaber is a partner in Mayer Brown's Intellectual Property practice, focusing on Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission. He has represented both complainants and respondents in a variety of industries.

The respondents in ITC investigation 337-TA-1432, "Certain Mobile Electronic Devices," are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. Both Samsung entities are represented by DLA Piper LLP (US). While specific individual attorneys are not explicitly named as "counsel of record" in the primary docket entry, DLA Piper's strong ITC Section 337 practice and its history of representing Samsung in patent litigation strongly suggest the involvement of its leading ITC attorneys.

Based on DLA Piper's recognized expertise and personnel in ITC Section 337 investigations, the following attorneys from DLA Piper LLP (US) are likely to be involved as counsel of record for the defendant(s) (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.):

• Erin Gibson

  • Role: Partner, Chair of International Trade Commission Practice & Global Co-Chair, Technology Sector.
  • Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Recognized as a top ITC litigator, ranked as the #1 most active and #1 best performing ITC attorney representing respondents by Patexia. She has extensive experience representing global technology companies in patent litigation and was part of the DLA Piper team that secured a victory for Samsung Electronics Co. in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Helena Kiepura

  • Role: Partner, Vice Chair of International Trade Commission Practice.
  • Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Frequently recognized for her ITC litigation practice, described as an "excellent ITC litigator" known for commitment and effectiveness. She was also part of the DLA Piper trial team that secured a victory for Samsung Electronics Co. in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Sean Cunningham

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: An experienced ITC litigator, particularly for technology, medical device, and power equipment companies. He was part of the DLA Piper trial team that secured a victory for Samsung Electronics Co. in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Mark Fowler

  • Role: Partner, Co-Chair of the firm's global IP and technology group.
  • Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Palo Alto, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Serves as lead trial counsel for significant technology and medical device companies, including Samsung and Toshiba. He is distinguished by extensive experience litigating patent disputes and was involved in the DLA Piper team that secured a victory for Samsung Electronics Co. in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Daniel Valencia

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington, D.C.
  • Relevant Experience: Described by clients as an "excellent ITC litigator" and a brilliant legal mind with deep technical and procedural knowledge of ITC practice.

• Matthew Satchwell

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Chicago, IL.
  • Relevant Experience: Part of the leadership team for DLA Piper's ITC practice.

• Brian Erickson

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Austin, TX.
  • Relevant Experience: Recognized as a best-performing ITC attorney representing respondents. He was part of the DLA Piper trial team that secured a victory for Samsung Electronics Co. in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Michael Jay

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Los Angeles, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Recognized as a best-performing ITC attorney representing respondents. He was part of the DLA Piper trial team that secured a victory for Samsung Electronics Co. in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Erin McLaughlin

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), New York, NY.
  • Relevant Experience: Possesses deep ITC knowledge and experience, considered a top subject matter expert in this venue.

• Paulina Starostka

  • Role: Associate.
  • Firm & Office: DLA Piper LLP (US), Chicago, IL.
  • Relevant Experience: Described as an exceptional attorney with unparalleled attention to detail and a deep understanding of Section 337 investigations. She was part of the DLA Piper trial team that secured a victory for Samsung Electronics Co. in the Eastern District of Texas.