Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Jun Saito et al.

I'll research this proceeding and the underlying litigation before drafting.

Case overview

Framing note first: the caption in the case metadata (IPR2019‑00462, "Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Jun Saito et al.") is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district‑court infringement suit, so there is no "division" or "judge" in the Article III sense. PTAB indexes (and the metadata here) docket the proceeding against the named inventor, Jun Saito, but the Board's own papers caption it Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd., and Maxell was the patent owner/respondent of record. The infringement litigation that generated the IPR was Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. and Huawei Device Co., Ltd., No. 5:18‑cv‑00033‑RWS (E.D. Tex., Texarkana Division, Judge Robert W. Schroeder III), filed March 2, 2018 — a follow‑on to an earlier November 18, 2016 suit, No. 5:16‑cv‑00178‑RWS. (Joint Motion to Terminate, Paper 7; docket, 5:18‑cv‑00033)

Parties. Maxell, Ltd. (Oyamazaki, Kyoto, Japan) is a Japanese operating company — the consumer‑electronics successor of Hitachi Maxell — with real product lines in batteries, storage media, projectors and functional materials. It is therefore not a classic shell PAE, but from roughly 2016 onward it ran an aggressive, portfolio‑wide licensing/enforcement campaign against smartphone makers that is commonly analyzed alongside PAE assertion patterns; the '487 patent itself was originally assigned to Hitachi, Ltd. and moved to Maxell through the 2014 Hitachi Maxell assignment and a 2017 assignment to Maxell, Ltd. (USPTO assignment records for 7,324,487) Huawei — Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (petitioner) with affiliates Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (Shenzhen) and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (Plano, Texas) as district‑court defendants — is a Chinese telecom equipment and handset maker; Huawei Device USA's Texas principal place of business was Maxell's stated basis for personal jurisdiction and venue in Texarkana. (Complaint, Dkt. 1, 5:18‑cv‑00033)

Patent and accused technology. The sole patent at issue in IPR2019‑00462 is U.S. Patent No. 7,324,487 B2, "Wireless LAN system and method for roaming in a multiple base station" (inventor Jun Saito; filed Feb. 10, 2003; JP priority Feb. 12, 2002; issued Jan. 29, 2008; 968 days PTA). In one line: it claims a method in which a wireless terminal is concurrently connected ("multilink") to at least two base transceiver stations tied by a wired network, with data communication then carried by one selected station based on load/stability — an early soft‑handover/load‑balancing scheme for roaming. Huawei's petition challenged claims 1–5 on obviousness, supported by the Declaration of Mark R. Lanning and references including Uhlik (6,760,599), Yamashita (6,108,547), Wong & Lim's "Soft Handoffs in CDMA Mobile Systems," Arvidsson (WO 2002/49391), Fauconnier, Padovani and Toskala. (Petition, Jan. 4, 2019; patent text) The accused products were Huawei smartphones/tablets alleged to implement concurrent multi‑base‑station connectivity (Maxell's infringement contentions were filed as EX1013); Maxell later used the same patent against Lenovo/Motorola devices accused of LTE+5G dual connectivity, which illustrates the claim's scope as Maxell reads it.

Posture and why it matters. The petition was filed January 4, 2019, as one of ten parallel Huawei IPRs against Maxell's asserted portfolio (IPR2018‑00251 and IPR2019‑00192, ‑00462, ‑00464, ‑00575, ‑00576, ‑00622, ‑00640, ‑00656, ‑00661), staffed at the Board by a panel including Lynne E. Pettigrew, Minn Chung, Terrence W. McMillin, John A. Hudalla and Jason W. Melvin. Huawei's IPR counsel was Fish & Richardson (Michael Hawkins, Patrick Bisenius, Stuart Nelson); Maxell's PTAB counsel was Mayer Brown (Robert G. Pluta, Amanda S. Bonner, Saqib J. Siddiqui, Bryan C. Nese, Luiz A. Miranda), while the district‑court case featured Covington & Burling for Huawei and Patton Tidwell & Culbertson plus Mayer Brown for Maxell. (Order Authorizing Termination, Mar. 1, 2019; Law360 coverage/download-documents?artifactId=VTFr7hUhNM2d3s-CXoCgdDBP-_8UfXr5VPh7f3XB0uKx7Pe1jNy6

I'll research this case and its related proceedings. Note upfront: the metadata describes a PTAB IPR (IPR2019-00462), not a district court case, so I'll cover the IPR's full trajectory plus any parallel district court litigation involving the same patent and parties.

Now let me dig into the specific IPR docket and the parallel district court cases.

Let me get the IPR2019-00462 docket document list and details on the district court Markman ruling and case schedule.

I'll search several angles for press coverage of this IPR and the underlying Maxell–Huawei dispute.

Good initial hits. Let me dig deeper for specific IPR coverage and the broader Maxell enforcement campaign reporting.

Let me look for coverage of the initial 2016 suit, the sanctions fight, and any analyst/industry treatment of Maxell's enforcement campaign.

Press coverage: extensive on the Texas case and the settlement wave, essentially none on IPR2019‑00462 itself

Bottom line first: I found no article in any outlet — legal trade, mainstream tech, or patent blog — that reports on IPR2019‑00462 by number or discusses the '487 patent's PTAB challenge as such. Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently‑O and EFF Deeplinks returned nothing for this IPR or for the '487 patent. The Board's April 17, 2019 termination decision was a docket consequence of the parties' February 2019 settlement and was not itself reported as news. What was covered, heavily by Law360 and picked up by RPX and by Chinese and UK trade press, is the surrounding dispute: Maxell's smartphone‑patent campaign, the $43.3 million ZTE verdict that set the settlement template, and the Huawei resolution that mooted this IPR.

The Huawei settlement. Law360 reported on 2019‑02‑21 (by Nadia Dred) that "Huawei has reached a deal with Japanese electronics manufacturer Maxell that will allow it to escape a suit accusing it of infringing a number of Maxell smartphone patents, just in time to avoid a hearing scheduled for this week." Per that report, terms were confidential, but the parties told the Texas court "all matters in controversy between the parties have been settled in principle," three days before a scheduled hearing. The same article supplies the color the court record doesn't: that the fight began in November 2016 over Huawei's alleged continued infringement "despite 'numerous meetings and interactions' about the infringement dating back to June 2013," and that the parties had "butted heads over discovery," with Maxell moving in March 2018 to sanction Huawei for "complete disregard" for court orders — behavior Maxell said had "reached new heights." A full‑text copy of this article is itself in the PTAB record as a filing attachment (PTAB‑hosted PDF), and Law360 separately reported on 2018‑03‑19 ("Maxell Seeks Sanctions Against Huawei In Smartphone IP Suit"). No outlet reported any settlement figure for Huawei — Law360 expressly said the terms were confidential, so any number circulating for the Huawei deal is unsourced.

The numbers, and where they come from. The only hard figure the press reported in this campaign is the ZTE verdict. Law360 reported on 2018‑07‑02 (Dorothy Atkins) that a unanimous E.D. Tex. jury found ZTE USA willfully infringed seven Maxell smartphone patents and awarded $43.3 million, after a two‑week trial; the patents covered "camera patents, a cellular data transmission patent, a power supply management patent, two audio decoding patents and a walking location patent." Law360 then reported on 2019‑02‑04 (Daniel Siegal) that Maxell and ZTE reached a confidential settlement after that verdict, with a near‑identical notice filed in the bifurcated ZTE Corp. case. WIPR reported on 2018‑07‑04 that ZTE and ZTE USA were ordered to pay the $43.3 million, quoting Maxell trial counsel Jamie Beaber of Mayer Brown: "we are happy we were able to underscore the significance and value of the inventions within Maxell's portfolio. The jury absolutely got this one correct." Non‑press but relevant to the numbers: Analysis Group — the consultancy behind Maxell's damages expert — states the $43.3 million tracked its reasonable‑royalty model, i.e., the award was a royalty figure, not a trebled one.

Where accounts diverge, and where reporting outruns the record. Three gaps are worth flagging. (i) Trebling: Law360's July 2018 story says the willfulness finding allowed the court to "triple the damages," which reads as though $43.3 million were a multiplier‑eligible base; Analysis Group's account indicates $43.3 million was itself the royalty award consistent with a hypothetical‑negotiation analysis, and no report identifies a trebled judgment. (ii) Which case settled: Law360's February 2019 Huawei story names only Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 5:16‑cv‑00178 — it does not mention 5:18‑cv‑00033, the March 2018 suit in which the '487 patent was actually asserted (see the complaint text reproduced in the PTAB record, e.g. Ex. 1018); this is a reporting simplification relative to the earlier section's account of -00033 as the '487 vehicle. (iii) Characterization of Maxell: WIPR described Maxell as "a subsidiary of Japanese conglomerate Hitachi," which is imprecise given the 2014 Hitachi Maxell assignment and 2017 transfer to Maxell, Ltd. reflected in USPTO records discussed earlier. WIPR also wrote that the jury "did not give a ruling on the '443 patent," whereas Law360 reported that ZTE withdrew one expired patent before trial — different explanations for the same seven‑of‑eight outcome.

Industry reaction / analysis beyond the court record. The most useful analytical take is from RPX, which on 2019‑03‑20 framed the Huawei resolution as part of a pattern: "Following a Recent Burst of Settlements, Maxell Sets Its Sights on Apple" — noting that "[o]n the heels of recent settlements with ASUSTek, Huawei, and ZTE, Maxell has sued Apple," in a March 15, 2019 E.D. Tex. complaint asserting ten patents "including patents previously asserted by Maxell against ASUSTek, BlackBerry, Huawei, and/or ZTE" and several "that were at issue in a June 2018 trial against ZTE, which culminated in a $43.3M damages award" (RPX). Chinese‑language trade coverage treated the ZTE award as a damages‑exposure cautionary tale for Chinese handset makers rather than as news about Huawei specifically — see 知产力 (2018‑07‑05), which walks through the willfulness finding and the treble‑damages mechanism, and IPRdaily, which frames the $43 million award (≈RMB 285 million) as a "sky‑high" U.S. patent verdict and explains how the willfulness finding drove the exposure. Notably, Maxell's own later PTAB filings cite the Huawei outcome as a campaign data point — a Samsung‑era brief lists "Huawei and Lenovo: Secured settlements after initiating litigation" among Maxell's enforcement successes ([Maxell filing excerpt](https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558237/download-documents?artifactId=U8rG3OGA0fWh9LCR-XsXriQw8-zF4b8l

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION
• AO 120 (Rev
• Maxell, Huawei Reach Terms To End Smartphone Patent Suit
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION
• Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device U.S. Inc. - Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device U.S. Inc.
• 5:16-cv-00178 | Maxell Ltd v. Huawei Tech Co Ltd | Ex Parte
• Having successfully negotiated with a majority of the industry, Maxell was hopeful it could do the same with Samsung
• Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device U.S. Inc., 297 F. Supp. 3d 668 – CourtListener.com - Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device U.S. Inc., 297 F. Supp. 3d 668 (E.D. Tex. 2018)
• Google Scholar
• In its reply, Maxell contends that Huawei's proposal improperly limits the claims to the proposed solution of a problem in the p...
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

I'll dig into the PTAB filings and docket records for this case to identify petitioner Huawei's counsel of record.

Now let me pull the petition's mandatory notices and power of attorney to confirm lead/backup designations and registration numbers.

Let me try to retrieve the petition itself and confirm registration numbers and office locations for each Fish attorney.

Threshold point: there is no "plaintiff" in this proceeding

Before naming anyone, one correction to the framing. IPR2019-00462 is not a patent infringement case; it is an inter partes review at the PTAB, where Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. was the petitioner and Maxell, Ltd. was the patent owner (the caption's "Jun Saito" is the '487 patent's named inventor — the anomaly already flagged in the earlier section). The Board's own filings confirm the real alignment: "HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., Petitioner v. MAXELL, LTD., Patent Owner" (Termination Decision, Paper 9 at 1). So "plaintiff's counsel" here means Huawei's petitioner-side counsel of record. I address that below, then note the district-court plaintiff's counsel (Maxell's) separately for completeness, since the metadata's "plaintiff" label maps to the E.D. Tex. case, not this one.

---

Huawei's counsel of record in IPR2019-00462

All petitioner-side counsel came from a single firm — Fish & Richardson P.C. There was no local counsel (no such role at the PTAB) and no in-house attorney appeared of record; Huawei's signature blocks list only outside counsel. The names below are taken from the Board's Paper 6 order and the Paper 9 termination decision, both of which carry the Board's own "PETITIONER:" service block.

Sources: Paper 6, Order Authorizing Filing of Motion to Terminate (Mar. 1, 2019), petitioner service block reciting "IPR2019-00462: Michael Hawkins, Patrick Bisenius, Stuart Nelson, Kim Leung, Nicholas Stephens … hawkins@fr.com, bisenius@fr.com, snelson@fr.com, leung@fr.com, nstephens@fr.com" (Docket Alarm); and Paper 9 termination decision, same five names under "PETITIONER:" with "Fish & Richardson P.C." (link). The Hawkins registration number is confirmed from Fish's own mandatory notices in other Huawei matters, which list "Michael T. Hawkins, Reg. No. 57,867, 3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402" (e.g., IPR2017-00671 Paper 7); Leung's from Fish's IPR2022-01547 notices.

Note on the lead/back-up split. I did not retrieve Paper 2 (the petition) or the 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) power of attorney in this file, so the formal lead/back-up designation as stated in the mandatory notices is inferred from the Board's two service blocks, which list Hawkins first in each case and identify the rest as the petitioner's counsel group. That inference is strong — Hawkins is first-listed in both orders and the corresponding refund request in the companion IPR2019-00192 is signed by him as lead — but it is an inference, not a quotation from the POA.

Two things worth stating explicitly rather than glossing over:

1. This was a change of counsel from the earlier Huawei–Maxell wave. The prior round of Huawei–Maxell IPRs (e.g., IPR2018-00246 on the '901 patent) was handled by Covington & Burling LLP — David A. Garr (lead), Gregory S. Discher, Anupam Sharma (POA, IPR2018-00246). Covington also represented Huawei in the E.D. Tex. litigation (Stanley Young, Anupam Sharma, Gregory Nieberg, et al., per the 297 F. Supp. 3d 668 caption). Covington does not appear in IPR2019-00462 — Fish & Richardson ran the 2019 nine-petition wave.
2. No pro hac vice admissions, no motions, and no counsel changes occurred before termination. The file ran to only nine papers; the proceeding was dismissed pre-institution with Maxell never filing a preliminary response (Paper 9 at 1–2).

---

For completeness: counsel for the district-court plaintiff (Maxell)

If the question is really aimed at the infringement suit that spawned this IPR — Maxell, Ltd. v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 5:16-cv-00178-RWS (and the '487-related 5:18-cv-00033-RWS, E.D. Tex.) — then the plaintiff's counsel were:

• Robert G. Pluta (Mayer Brown LLP, Chicago) — lead; registered practitioner (Reg. No. 50,970) and Maxell's lead across its IPR campaigns.
• Amanda Streff Bonner, Saqib J. Siddiqui, Luiz A. Miranda, Bryan C. Nese, Jamie B. Beaber, Tiffany A. Miller, Kfir B. Levy, Clark S. Bakewell, Justin Park, James A. Fussell III, Alan M. Grimaldi, Alison T. Gelsleichter, Baldine Brunel Paul, Michael T. Lindinger, Tyler J. Earnest, William Justin Barrow (Mayer Brown, Washington DC / Chicago).
• Geoffrey Patton Culbertson (Patton, Tidwell & Schroeder LLP, Texarkana, TX) — local counsel.

These names come from the caption of the Markman opinion, Maxell Ltd. v. Huawei Device U.S. Inc., 297 F. Supp. 3d 668 (E.D. Tex. 2018) (vLex, CourtListener). On the PTAB side, Maxell's counsel in this IPR were Pluta, Bonner, Miranda, and Siddiqui of Mayer Brown (Paper 9 service block) — consistent with the earlier "In the news" note.

---

Caveats on sourcing

• No PACER/docket-sheet confirmation for this IPR beyond the Board's own papers. The PTAB file is not a PACER docket; the authoritative record is Papers 1–9, of which I directly verified Papers 6, 7, and 9.
• Unverified details: registration numbers for Bisenius, Nelson, and Stephens; the specific Fish office for Bisenius, Nelson, and Stephens (Fish lists PTAB counsel under the Minneapolis address as a matter of routine, but I did not confirm each individual's home office); and the exact lead/back-up labels as formally designated in the petition's § 42.8(b)(3) notices.
• Nothing is sealed as to counsel. The confidentiality order in this case covers only the settlement agreement (Ex. 1021) under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c) — not appearances — so the absence of any additional counsel is a real absence, not a sealing artifact.
• The "plaintiff" label in the case metadata is a taxonomy artifact. Greyb/IP Verse's database assigns "Petitioner Counsel: Michael Hawkins / Respondent Counsel: Robert Pluta" (IP Verse), which matches the Board record; the "Saito, Jun" respondent designation in the same database is the source of the caption error carried into the metadata, and it should not be read as identifying Saito's counsel — Saito had none.

I'll research counsel of record for the respondent/patent owner side, plus check the parallel district court docket for the defense-side teams.

Threshold point: who is the "defendant" in an IPR

This is not a district‑court infringement action, so there is no complaint, no Rule 12 practice, no PACER civil docket, and no party formally styled "defendant." IPR2019‑00462 is a PTAB inter partes review in which Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. is the petitioner and the adverse party is the patent owner, Maxell, Ltd. (formerly Hitachi Maxell), which is the real party in interest for the '487 patent. The caption's "Jun Saito" is the named inventor of US 7,324,487 and appears as the nominal "respondent" only in third‑party PTAB databases that key off the patent's inventorship record (IPVerse, IPR2019‑00462). That caption quirk was already flagged in the "In the news" section and it recurs here: Saito has no counsel of record in this proceeding.

Accordingly, the answer below identifies counsel for the defendant‑side party, Maxell, Ltd., and then, as a cross‑reference, the defense team in the underlying Texas infringement suit — the only forum in the dispute where Huawei actually wore the "defendant" label.

---

1. Maxell, Ltd. — counsel of record in IPR2019‑00462

Source for the identification: the PTAB case record compiles "Respondent Counsel: Robert Pluta" for IPR2019‑00462 (IPVerse), corroborated by Maxell's powers of attorney in the companion Huawei–Maxell IPRs filed the same window, which appoint "Practitioner(s) at Mayer Brown LLP associated with Customer Number 26565" and name Pluta as lead (PO Power of Attorney, IPR2019‑00661, filed 2019‑03‑05; see also IPR2018‑00904 mandatory notices).

What I could not verify — and why it matters

I was unable to confirm a formal § 42.8 designation of lead and backup counsel specifically in IPR2019‑00462, because the file appears to contain no such paper. The docket for this proceeding is exceptionally thin (roughly nine entries): Huawei's petition (Jan. 2019), possibly a petitioner power of attorney, the joint motion to terminate (Paper 7, filed 2019‑04‑10), and the Board's termination decision (Paper 9, 2019‑04‑17). As noted in the earlier section, Maxell never filed a preliminary response and never opposed institution, so it had no occasion to file mandatory notices, an updated power of attorney, or a pro hac vice motion in this case. Practically, then, "counsel of record" for Maxell in IPR2019‑00462 is established by (a) the Mayer Brown signature/attestation on the joint motion to terminate and (b) the Board's service records — not by a standalone appearance paper. If you need the signature block itself, it is on Paper 7; I could not open the signature page in this session and therefore do not assert who signed for Maxell beyond the firm identification.

Backup counsel — likely designees, expressly flagged as inference

The following attorneys were Pluta's designated backup counsel for Maxell in the same-period IPRs. They are not documented as having appeared in IPR2019‑00462 itself, and I am listing them only as the team that would have stood behind Pluta had the case proceeded: