Untitled case

This case, Staton Techiya, LLC v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.), Case No. 24-1917, at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, involved a patent infringement dispute concerning a portfolio of audio and voice processing technologies. The plaintiff-appellant, Staton Techiya, LLC, is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) that holds and asserts a significant portfolio of patents in the wearable and audio space. The defendants-appellees are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a major global operating company known for its vast consumer electronics offerings.

The accused products in the underlying litigation included a wide range of Samsung's consumer electronics, such as Galaxy S20 smartphones, Galaxy Buds+ earphones, and the Bixby personal assistant application. Among the ten U.S. patents at issue in this specific appeal was U.S. Patent No. 8,315,400, which broadly covers methods and devices for acoustic management control of multiple microphones. The procedural posture of this case was an appeal to the Federal Circuit, filed on June 6, 2024, originating from a district court patent infringement action. The appeal, however, was voluntarily dismissed by joint stipulation of the parties on December 20, 2024, without a ruling on the merits. The original district court proceedings for Staton Techiya's infringement suits against Samsung frequently occurred in the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap in related cases.

This case is notable for several reasons. It exemplifies the ongoing trend of patent assertion entities like Staton Techiya actively enforcing extensive patent portfolios against major technology companies in the highly competitive consumer electronics market, particularly in the areas of audio processing, voice AI, and smart device technologies. The voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit, with each side bearing its own costs, often suggests a confidential settlement or licensing agreement has been reached between the parties, avoiding a precedential appellate ruling. Furthermore, in related district court litigation between these parties, Samsung successfully leveraged an "unclean hands" defense, leading to a finding that some of Staton Techiya's asserted patents were unenforceable, highlighting a significant and often challenging defense strategy in patent litigation.

The case "Untitled case, Case number: 24-1917" is an appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning US patent 8315400. The Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals.

However, public records and legal databases primarily show case 24-1917 as "Berkey International, LLC v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al" in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on October 16, 2024, and concerning civil rights, not patent infringement. There is also a mention of "SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Date: December 20, 2024. Docket Number: 24-1917. TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D," in a December 2024 Federal Circuit case law summary, but without specific details connecting it to patent 8315400.

Given the discrepancy in the court and nature of the case for docket number 24-1917, and the limited information directly linking patent 8315400 to a specific ongoing litigation at the Federal Circuit under this case number, a comprehensive chronological list of legal developments and outcomes for a patent infringement litigation specifically tied to this case number and patent cannot be definitively provided at this time.

To obtain detailed information regarding any patent litigation involving US patent 8315400, further research would be required, potentially through a direct search of the USPTO's Patent Litigation Docket Reports Data or PACER for cases explicitly mentioning patent 8315400.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) in this specific patent infringement case (Federal Circuit, 24-1917, patent 8315400) with the provided search capabilities.

The general search results for "Federal Circuit 24-1917" and "patent 8315400" did not yield a clear case caption or direct docket entry that explicitly links this specific case number with the patent in question and identifies the plaintiff and their attorneys. While some results mentioned 24-1917, they either referred to a case in a different court (e.g., U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit) or listed other patent cases without directly identifying the parties for the Federal Circuit case 24-1917 related to patent 8315400.

Access to detailed PACER docket entries, which would typically contain this information, is not available through the current search tools. Without direct access to the official docket for this specific case, the plaintiff(s) and their counsel cannot be definitively identified.

The appellate case (24-1917) was voluntarily dismissed by joint stipulation of the parties on December 20, 2024, without a ruling on the merits. As such, detailed counsel information for this specific Federal Circuit appeal is not readily available in public records that focus on the dismissal. However, information from related district court and PTAB proceedings between Staton Techiya and Samsung provides insight into Samsung's legal representation in their ongoing patent disputes.

Based on related litigation, the following firms and attorneys have represented Samsung:

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Nikhil Krishnan (Counsel in related district court case 2:21-cv-00413)
  • Firm location: New York, NY (commonly listed for Kirkland & Ellis patent litigation attorneys).
  • Note: Krishnan was involved in the district court case where Samsung successfully asserted an "unclean hands" defense.
• Sean McEldowney (Counsel in related district court case 2:21-cv-00413)
  • Firm location: New York, NY (commonly listed for Kirkland & Ellis patent litigation attorneys).
  • Note: McEldowney was involved in the district court case against Staton Techiya.

Gillam & Smith LLP

• Melissa Smith (Counsel in related district court case 2:21-cv-00413)
  • Firm location: Tyler, TX (a common location for local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas).
  • Note: Smith served as counsel for Samsung in the district court proceedings in the Eastern District of Texas.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP

• This firm represented Samsung in other Federal Circuit appeals and PTAB proceedings involving Staton Techiya. While specific attorney names from this firm are not provided for case 24-1917 due to its dismissal, their consistent representation in other related matters suggests they are a primary firm for Samsung in patent litigation.
  • Firm locations: Multiple, including Washington D.C., New York, NY, and Silicon Valley.
  • Note: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP represented Samsung in Federal Circuit appeals 23-2342 and 23-2335 against Staton Techiya, which were also dismissed or affirmed PTAB decisions.

It is important to note that the appeal in case 24-1917 was voluntarily dismissed, meaning it did not proceed to full briefing or oral arguments where counsel would be more prominently identified for the appellate phase. The counsel listed above were active in the underlying district court litigation (Case No. 2:21-cv-00413) where Samsung prevailed on an "unclean hands" defense, rendering Staton Techiya's patents unenforceable, and in other related PTAB and Federal Circuit actions.