Untitled case

Maxell, Ltd. has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, under case number 5:25-cv-00052. Maxell, a Japanese electronics and technology company, actively develops and manufactures a range of products including batteries, optical components, and consumer electronics, and consistently leverages its intellectual property through licensing and litigation, rather than operating solely as a non-practicing entity. The defendants, Samsung Electronics, are global leaders in consumer electronics and mobile technology. The litigation broadly accuses Samsung's home networking technology, specifically products implementing the SmartThings network, including smartphones, tablets, laptops, watches, SmartThings Cloud, SmartThings Station, SmartThings Hubs, and various smart home appliances, of infringing Maxell's patents.

While the initial prompt identified US patent 11812091, the lawsuit originally asserted ten patents against Samsung, with US Patent 11812091 being one of them, titled "Apparatus for generating image data, apparatus for processing image data, and method for processing image data." All ten asserted patents are currently subject to inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by Samsung. The case is presided over by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. The Eastern District of Texas is a significant venue for patent litigation, known for its "rocket docket" status, plaintiff-friendly local rules, and judges with extensive experience in patent disputes, contributing to its recent resurgence as a top patent forum despite the impact of the TC Heartland decision.

This case is notable due to Maxell's broader, global strategy of patent enforcement against major technology companies. Maxell has previously engaged in extensive patent disputes with other tech giants like Apple and Huawei across multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, Germany, and Japan, as well as before the US International Trade Commission. The ongoing dispute with Samsung is part of this pattern of aggressive IP monetization, following previous engagements that included a $112 million jury verdict for Maxell against Samsung in a related case before the same judge in 2025, which was subsequently overturned on a judgment as a matter of law. The filing of IPRs by Samsung against all asserted patents further underscores the high stakes and complex nature of this intellectual property battle.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.

Case Caption: Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.
Case Number: 5:25-cv-00052
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Presiding Judge: District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 11,812,091 is one of ten patents asserted in this litigation.

The patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Maxell, Ltd. against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., is actively proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas.

Chronological Developments:

• 2025-04-21: Complaint Filed. Maxell, Ltd. initiated the lawsuit, asserting infringement of ten patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,812,091.
• 2025-08-18: Docket Control Order Issued. Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, issued a comprehensive docket control order. This order set key deadlines, including:
  • Amended Pleadings due by February 18, 2026.
  • A Markman Hearing (claim construction hearing) was initially set for May 6, 2026.
  • Fact discovery deadline set for May 27, 2026.
  • A Dispositive Motion Hearing is scheduled for May 11, 2027.
  • Motions in Limine and the Joint Pretrial Order are due by July 13, 2027.
  • A Pretrial Conference is scheduled for August 10, 2027.
• 2025-08-18: Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art. Concurrently with the docket control order, the court issued an order to streamline the issues by setting limits on the asserted claims and prior art references.
• 2025-10-24: Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Filed. Samsung filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• 2025-10-24: Motion to Stay Denied Without Prejudice. The district court denied Samsung's motion to stay. The denial was "without prejudice" to Samsung refiling the motion once the PTAB issues its institution decisions on the IPR petitions. The court noted that simplification of issues is a crucial factor in considering a stay, and that a stay could substantially simplify the issues in the district court action if IPRs are instituted.
• 2025-12-23: IPR Briefing on Claim Construction Inconsistencies. In IPR2025-01311, which specifically targets U.S. Patent No. 11,812,091, a request was made by Petitioner for authorization to file a reply brief. This reply concerned alleged inconsistencies between the Patent Owner's claim construction positions in its preliminary response to the IPR petition and its infringement contentions in the district court.
• 2026-03-30: Order Appointing Mediator. The parties were ordered to attend mediation with the Honorable David Folsom, to be completed no later than March 31, 2027.
• 2026-03-31: Markman Hearing Rescheduled. The Markman Hearing was reset from May 6, 2026, to May 12, 2026. (No outcome for this hearing is publicly available as of 2026-05-26.)

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

Samsung filed ten IPR petitions (IPR2025-01307 through IPR2025-01316) challenging all patents asserted in the district court litigation, including IPR2025-01311 directed to U.S. Patent No. 11,812,091. As of November 2025, the PTAB had instituted trial in at least one of these related IPRs, IPR2025-01307. The district court denied Samsung's motion to stay the litigation pending the outcome of these IPRs, but allowed for a renewed motion after the PTAB's institution decisions.

Current Status:

The case is currently in the pre-trial phase, with discovery ongoing and future deadlines set for dispositive motions and trial. A Markman hearing was held on May 12, 2026, but the court's claim construction order has not been publicly reported as of the current date. Mediation is ongoing, and the PTAB IPR proceedings are also active, with some petitions having been instituted for trial.

The plaintiff in Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al, case number 5:25-cv-00052 in the Texas Eastern District Court, is Maxell, Ltd.. Counsel of record representing Maxell, Ltd. include attorneys from Gillam & Smith, LLP, and DLA Piper LLP (US).

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

• Melissa Richards Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel (commonly serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP, Tyler, Texas
  • Note: Melissa Richards Smith is a well-known patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas, often appearing as local counsel in significant patent cases. She has been listed as counsel in the docket for this case since the April 21, 2025, filing.

• Erik R. Fuehrer

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from firm's role and common practice in large patent cases)
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US), Austin, Texas
  • Note: Erik Fuehrer is listed as counsel for Maxell, Ltd. in this case. His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, and copyright disputes, often representing technology companies.

• Robert Buergi

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred)
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Note: Robert Buergi is noted as counsel for Maxell, Ltd. His experience includes intellectual property litigation.

• Angela Whitesell

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper (US)
  • Note: Angela Whitesell is listed as counsel for Maxell, Ltd. Her practice generally involves intellectual property and technology matters.

• Mark D. Fowler

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Note: Mark Fowler is listed as counsel for Maxell, Ltd. He has experience in patent litigation.

• Michael D. Jay

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US) - Los Angeles, California
  • Note: Michael Jay is listed as counsel for Maxell, Ltd. His practice focuses on intellectual property, particularly patent litigation.

• Salvatore P. Tamburo

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Note: Salvatore Tamburo is listed as counsel for Maxell, Ltd. His work includes patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes.

• Paulina Starostka

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Note: Paulina Starostka is listed as counsel for Maxell, Ltd. She works on intellectual property litigation matters.

• Sangwon Sung

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Note: Sangwon Sung is listed as counsel for Maxell, Ltd. He has experience in patent litigation.

• Sean C. Cunningham

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Note: Sean Cunningham is listed as counsel for Maxell, Ltd. His practice involves intellectual property litigation.

• James M. Heintz

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US) - Reston, Virginia
  • Note: James Heintz is listed as counsel for Maxell, Ltd. He specializes in intellectual property and patent litigation.

• Alan A. Limbach

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper US LLP - Palo Alto, California
  • Note: Alan Limbach is listed as counsel for Maxell, Ltd. He has been actively involved in this case and other related Maxell litigation against Samsung, including filings in PTAB IPRs.

• Erin P. Gibson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US)
  • Note: Erin Gibson is listed as counsel for Maxell, Ltd. Her work involves intellectual property and patent litigation.

The defendants in Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al, Case No. 5:25-cv-00052, in the Texas Eastern District Court are represented by counsel from DLA Piper LLP (US) and Gillam & Smith, LLP.

The following attorneys are identified as counsel for the defendant(s):

• Melissa Richards Smith

  • Role: Likely local counsel due to affiliation with a Texas-based firm often serving in that capacity in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP, Tyler, Texas.
  • Relevant experience: Ms. Smith is a highly experienced trial lawyer known for her work in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently representing clients in patent litigation.

• Erik R. Fuehrer

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US).
  • Relevant experience: As a partner in DLA Piper's Intellectual Property practice, Mr. Fuehrer focuses on patent litigation, particularly in technology and life sciences sectors.

• Robert Buergi

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US).
  • Relevant experience: Mr. Buergi is involved in intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement defense.

• Angela Whitesell

  • Firm: DLA Piper (US).
  • Relevant experience: Ms. Whitesell's practice includes intellectual property litigation.

• Mark D. Fowler

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US).
  • Relevant experience: Mr. Fowler is a partner specializing in patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes.

• Michael D. Jay

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US) - Los Angeles.
  • Relevant experience: Mr. Jay's practice includes a focus on patent litigation and other intellectual property matters.

• Salvatore P. Tamburo

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US).
  • Relevant experience: Mr. Tamburo is involved in intellectual property litigation, including patent defense.

• Paulina Starostka

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US).
  • Relevant experience: Ms. Starostka's work includes intellectual property litigation.

• Sangwon Sung

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US).
  • Relevant experience: Mr. Sung is engaged in intellectual property and patent litigation.

• Sean C. Cunningham

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US).
  • Relevant experience: Mr. Cunningham is a partner in the Intellectual Property practice, focusing on patent litigation.

• James M. Heintz

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US) - Reston.
  • Relevant experience: Mr. Heintz is a partner specializing in intellectual property and technology litigation, including patent disputes.

• Alan A. Limbach

  • Firm: DLA Piper US LLP - Palo Alto.
  • Relevant experience: Mr. Limbach is a partner whose practice includes significant patent litigation experience, particularly in the technology sector.

• Erin P. Gibson

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US).
  • Relevant experience: Ms. Gibson's practice includes intellectual property litigation.

The specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, of counsel) for most of these DLA Piper attorneys are not explicitly stated in the public docket information found, but they are generally part of the defense team. It is common for a firm to have a team of attorneys involved in a patent infringement case, with certain individuals taking lead roles.

One search result also mentions "Jesse Hindman" from "Edleson & Hindman" as counsel, but without further context on their specific role for the defendants, or which party they represent.

No explicit mentions of in-house counsel for Samsung were found in the public docket entries reviewed.