AQ Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

This case, AQ Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-01012), is a patent infringement lawsuit filed on October 7, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, AQ Corporation, appears to be a global provider of NFC (Near Field Communication) antennas to smartphone makers and NFC unified solutions, with a focus on integrating NFC tag modules into digital signage for bi-directional multimedia communication. While some sources refer to an "AQ Group AB" in Sweden that manufactures components and systems for industrial customers, or an "AQ CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED" incorporated in 2023, the description of AQ Corporation as an NFC antenna and solution provider for smartphones aligns more directly with potential patent infringement against a major electronics manufacturer like Samsung. The defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a South Korean multinational electronics corporation, and its subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America Inc., are major manufacturers of consumer electronics, including smartphones, televisions, home appliances, and semiconductors. Samsung Electronics is one of the world's largest technology companies by revenue and the largest vendor of smartphones since 2012.

The asserted patent in this case is US Patent 11728564. A one-line technical sketch of this patent is not immediately available through public search results without direct access to the patent document itself (e.g., via USPTO Patent Public Search or Patent Center). The accused products or technology are not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets, but given AQ Corporation's stated business in NFC antennas and solutions for smartphones, it is highly probable that the infringement allegations relate to Samsung's smartphone devices and their NFC capabilities.

This litigation is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue known for its expeditious handling of patent cases and a popular forum for patent owners. The specific judge for this case is not definitively identified in the provided information. The case is notable as it involves a major player in the global electronics market, Samsung, which has a long history of extensive patent litigation, particularly concerning smartphone technology. There is also an existing Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. against AQ Corporation (IPR2026-00232) concerning a different patent, US11495875B1, filed on January 26, 2026. This indicates that Samsung is actively challenging AQ Corporation's patent portfolio, a common strategy for defendants in patent infringement lawsuits. The filing of an IPR suggests that Samsung is seeking to invalidate at least one of AQ Corporation's patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the USPTO.

AQ Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on October 7, 2025, concerning US patent 11728564. The case is ongoing.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025-10-07): AQ Corporation initiated the lawsuit by filing its complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Motion to Change Lead Counsel (2026-02-04): A "Motion to Change Lead Counsel" was filed by the defendants (Document 23). This indicates that Samsung has appeared in the case and is actively managing its legal representation.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Briefing: The case is currently in the Markman briefing stage. This is a crucial pre-trial phase where the court will interpret the meaning and scope of the patent claims at issue.
• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent 11728564 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This IPR was filed more than three and a half years after the patent issued. While the direct effect on the litigation is not yet determined, the outcome of the IPR could significantly impact the district court case, potentially leading to a stay of the litigation or influencing claim construction.
• Proposed Verdict Form and Responses to Motions in Limine: Filings related to a "Proposed Verdict Form" and "Responses to Motions in Limine" were made on February 4, 2026 (Document 23). This suggests that the parties are preparing for potential trial, even while Markman briefing is underway.

I'll search multiple angles for press coverage of this case.

Press coverage of AQ Corp. v. Samsung (2:25-cv-01012)

Bottom line: there is essentially no U.S. trade-press coverage of this case. I searched the caption, the parties, the plaintiff ("AQ Corporation," "AQ Corp," Korean "에이큐"), the asserted patent numbers, and the PTAB proceedings. No Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, or JD Supra item discussing this litigation surfaced. The only substantive reporting I found is Korean-language business/IP press from the week after filing. Notably, the one article in the news index supplied with this assignment — IPWatchdog's "Patent Filings Roundup: In a Slow Week, IP Edge Hits Amazon on Cryptographic Keys and Jeffrey Gross-Run Entities Proliferate" (IPWatchdog, 2021‑11‑10) — is a false positive: it is a 2021 weekly docket table covering IP Edge, Auth Token LLC, and Compression Vectors LLC, predates this October 2025 suit by four years, and does not mention AQ Corporation or the '564 patent. It should not be cited as coverage of this case.

The Korean coverage. IPDaily reported on 2025‑10‑15 that AQ — a Seongnam/Bundang-based short-range wireless communications solutions supplier founded in 2006, led by CEO Lee Sang-hoon — sued Samsung in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas on October 7, asserting three patents on smartphone wireless-charging antenna structures: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,303,011; 11,495,875; and 11,728,564. IPDaily reported that AQ accuses all Galaxy S series and foldable models of infringement, that the complaint seeks treble damages for willful infringement plus a permanent injunction, and that AQ pitched a new WPC antenna design to Samsung in 2019 (filing a U.S. application five days later, per the complaint), only to discover its structure reflected in the Galaxy S21 antenna specification Samsung circulated to second-tier suppliers in September 2020. The Biz (서울와이어), in a "Biz&Law" piece by reporter Cheon Seong-yun, adds the technical framing — the three patents share the "smartphone flexible PCB antenna" title and vary in claims, with emphasis on MST (Magnetic Secure Transmission) — and characterizes the dispute as "technology expropriation" (기술 탈취) by a former supplier. The same article was re-published by IP-NAVI, the Korean IP protection portal, on 2025‑10‑13, listing "Samsung Galaxy S23 and multiple other products" as the accused products.

Reported numbers and significance. The most concrete figure in the press is financial, not damages: IPDaily, citing AQ's DART (Korean FSS) filings, reported that AQ's revenue collapsed from 13.35 billion KRW in 2021 to 2.29 billion KRW in 2022, which it attributes to Samsung ending purchases. No outlet reported a damages demand figure, settlement, or royalty rate. Both Korean pieces stress the "Wireless PowerShare" feature as the commercially significant accused functionality, with IPDaily quoting the expectation that "large royalties" could follow — an analytical take, not a court-record fact. IPDaily also frames the suit as part of a trend of Korean SMEs litigating against Korean conglomerates in U.S. courts, noting it was the second such ED Texas suit this year after Willoughby (윌러스표준기술연구소) sued Samsung in January 2025.

Where reporting diverges from the record. Every account frames the case as a three-patent case, whereas this case file lists only the '564 patent — the '011 and '875 assertions appear to have been split into companion suits, and Samsung filed three parallel IPRs on 2026‑01‑26 targeting the '011 (IPR2026‑00231), the '875 (IPR2026‑00232), and the '564 (IPR2026‑00234, corrected petition filed 2026‑01‑29, with AQ's discretionary-denial brief filed 2026‑03‑27). To my knowledge, none of those PTAB filings received any press attention; they are documented only in PTAB/docket databases. Likewise, the claim-construction and trial-preparation activity noted in this file has gone unreported in the press, and Samsung has made no public statement that I could locate — so any characterization of Samsung's position beyond its pleadings and IPR petitions would be unsourced.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Complaint analysis | 2:25-cv-01012 | Aq Corp v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Ex Parte
• AQ v 삼성전자.pdf - 第 1 页，共 40 页0
• US PTAB IP Litigation | Page 5
• 2:25-cv-01012 | Aq Corp v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Ex Parte
• Dale Chang representing Headwater Research LLC (Plaintiff) Ruffin B Cordell representing SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC
• Query Reports Utilities Help Log Out
• Ex. 1011 | IPR2026-00234 | Samsung Electronics America Inc v. Aq Corp | Ex Parte
• Docket Alarm | Litigation Outcomes, Delivered - - All Courts
• SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v. AQ Corporation - IPR2026-00234
• SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. vs AQ Corporation (2026) | US PTAB | Patent | Arctic Invent Case Law Database
• IPR2026-00232 | Samsung Electronics America Inc v. Aq Corp | Ex Parte

Here is the counsel of record representing AQ Corporation in AQ Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01012, in the Eastern District of Texas:

Austin C. Holler

• Role: Counsel of Record (appears to be a primary counsel)
• Firm: K&L Gates LLP
• Office Location: While not explicitly stated in the provided snippets for this specific case, K&L Gates is a large international firm. Austin Holler's profile might be on the K&L Gates website.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Austin C. Holler is listed as representing AQ Corp as the patent owner in this specific case, 2:25-CV-01012, involving semiconductors and optics.

Further details on other attorneys (e.g., local counsel) typically appearing in such Eastern District of Texas cases would require direct access to the court's docket entries beyond what is available in the provided search snippets. If there are other counsel, their appearances would be noted in subsequent docket filings.

Based on available web search results, identifying the specific counsel of record for the defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc., in the case AQ Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-01012) in the Eastern District of Texas is not directly possible without direct access to the case docket on PACER.

However, a search result indicates that there was a "Motion to Change Lead Counsel" filed on February 4, 2026, in this case (Document 23). This confirms that counsel has appeared for the defendants. Without viewing the specific docket entries, the names of the attorneys and their roles cannot be definitively confirmed.

Generally, Samsung Electronics is frequently represented by a number of prominent law firms in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, and also has robust in-house legal counsel. Examples from other cases include:

• DLA Piper: This firm has represented Samsung Electronics Co. in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, securing victories such as overturning a jury verdict in Maxell Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co..
  • Notable Attorneys (from other Samsung cases at DLA Piper): Sean Cunningham (Partner, Washington, DC), Erin Gibson (Partner, Washington, DC), Erik Fuehrer (Partner, Palo Alto), Mark Fowler (Partner, Palo Alto), Brian Erickson (Partner, Austin), Michael Jay (Partner, Los Angeles), James Heintz (Partner, Reston), Gianni Minutoli (Partner, Reston), Helena Kiepura (Partner, Washington, DC).
• Kirkland & Ellis: This firm has successfully defended Samsung in significant patent infringement lawsuits, such as a $4 billion semiconductor manufacturing patent lawsuit in the Western District of Texas.
• Samsung Electronics In-House Counsel:
  • Matthew Bathon: Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics. His responsibilities include coordinating Samsung's ITC and district court dockets. He previously was a partner at Steptoe LLP, focusing on Section 337 investigations before the ITC and IP disputes in district courts.
  • Phillip Lee: Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics US IP Center. He is a veteran litigator with extensive experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing across various technologies and has appeared before federal district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Given that direct docket access is not available, the specific counsel of record for AQ Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-01012) cannot be listed with certainty at this time.