Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Kannuu Pty Ltd., an Australian-based start-up company focused on developing search-and-navigation technology for media products, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung"). Samsung is a global electronics manufacturing company known for its wide range of consumer electronics, including the accused products in this litigation: Smart TVs and Blu-ray DVD players. The dispute stems from earlier business discussions between the parties, during which they entered into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) regarding Kannuu's search-and-navigation technology.

The technology at the heart of the complaint relates to search-and-navigation, specifically enabling consumers to use a four-direction navigation pad on remote controls to efficiently search for information or media content on their media devices. While earlier filings mentioned multiple patents, including a "'579 patent," the current case overview provided explicitly identifies U.S. Patent No. 11,573,939 as being at issue. This patent generally pertains to systems and methods for displaying and navigating search results, often within limited display environments such as those found on televisions.

The case is being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Edgardo Ramos. The Southern District of New York is an active patent litigation venue that employs Local Patent Rules. These rules mandate early and detailed disclosures of infringement and invalidity contentions, as well as an early claim construction process, which is intended to streamline patent disputes and define the scope of the patent rights early in the litigation. This litigation is notable due to its "NPE" (Non-Practicing Entity) or "PAE" (Patent Assertion Entity) assertion pattern, where a technology developer asserts its patents against a large operating company. Furthermore, the case gained significant attention for a unique procedural battle: a dispute over whether a forum selection clause in the parties' initial NDA could prevent Samsung from filing inter partes review (IPR) petitions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Both the District Court and the Federal Circuit ultimately ruled that the NDA's forum selection clause did not bar Samsung from pursuing IPRs, clarifying the distinction between contractual confidentiality obligations and the ability to challenge patent validity through statutory mechanisms. The case was stayed pending the outcome of these IPR proceedings.

The patent infringement litigation Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (1:19-cv-04297) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has seen several key legal developments, primarily involving parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and disputes over a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).

Here's a chronological summary of the key developments and outcomes:

• 2019-05-10 – Initial Complaint Filed: Kannuu Pty Ltd. filed its initial complaint, alleging that Samsung infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,370,393 ('393 patent), 8,676,852 ('852 patent), 9,436,354 ('354 patent), and 9,697,264 ('264 patent). The suit claimed that Samsung's Smart TVs and Blu-ray players incorporated Kannuu's remote control search-and-navigation technology. Kannuu also included a claim for breach of contract related to an NDA between the parties.
• 2019-10-01 – First Amended Complaint Filed: Kannuu filed a First Amended Complaint, adding U.S. Patent No. 8,996,579 ('579 patent) to the asserted patents.
• 2019-10-15 – Samsung Files Answer: Samsung filed its answer to Kannuu's First Amended Complaint.
• 2020-03-17 – Samsung Files IPR Petitions: Samsung petitioned the PTAB for inter partes review (IPR) of all claims of the five patents ('393, '852, '354, '264, and '579) asserted in the district court suit, arguing they were invalid as obvious and not novel.
• 2020-09-22 – PTAB Institutes Some IPRs: The PTAB denied institution of review for the '264, '852, and '579 patents. However, IPR proceedings were instituted for the '354 and '393 patents.
• 2020-10-21 – Kannuu Seeks Preliminary Injunction: Kannuu filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the district court, seeking to compel Samsung to dismiss the instituted IPR proceedings. Kannuu argued that Samsung's pursuit of IPRs violated a forum selection clause in the parties' non-disclosure agreement (NDA).
• 2021-01-19 – District Court Denies Injunction and Stays Case: The district court denied Kannuu's motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the IPR proceedings did not "relate to" the NDA and thus were not covered by its forum selection clause. The court also granted Samsung's motion to stay the district court litigation pending the resolution of the IPR proceedings concerning the '354 and '393 patents.
• 2021-09-21 – PTAB Invalidates '393 Patent Claims: The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2020-00738, holding claims 1-16 of the '393 patent unpatentable.
• 2021-10-07 – Federal Circuit Affirms District Court: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Kannuu's preliminary injunction motion. The Federal Circuit concurred that the NDA's forum selection clause did not encompass IPR proceedings, ruling that the connection between the IPRs and the NDA was too tenuous.
• 2025-07-29 – All Original Patents Invalidated; Leave Granted to Amend Complaint: By this date, all five original patents asserted by Kannuu ('393, '852, '354, '264, and '579) were reportedly invalidated through IPR proceedings. The district court subsequently granted Kannuu's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to add new patents, likely including U.S. Patent No. 11,573,939, which was granted to Kannuu Pty Ltd. on February 7, 2023. The court also denied Samsung's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Present Posture:
As of May 2026, the case remains active. While the initial five patents have been invalidated through PTAB proceedings, the district court has allowed Kannuu to amend its complaint to assert new patents. The litigation is expected to proceed with these newly added patents. No Markman hearing or trial has occurred yet for the newly asserted patents.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing Kannuu Pty Ltd. in Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-04297:

• Perry Mark Goldberg

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Progress LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Goldberg has represented Kannuu Pty Ltd. in the patent infringement suit against Samsung, including appeals to the Federal Circuit regarding preliminary injunctions related to IPR proceedings.

• Ted Sichelman

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Progress LLP, San Diego, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Sichelman has been involved in the litigation for Kannuu Pty Ltd., including the appeal to the Federal Circuit concerning the PTAB IPRs.

• Lewis Emery Hudnell, III

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Hudnell Law Group, Mountain View, CA
  • Experience Note: Mr. Hudnell has represented Kannuu Pty Ltd. in this patent infringement case, participating in the district court proceedings and the subsequent appeal.

• Bernard H. Chao

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: (Affiliation not explicitly stated in snippets, but listed alongside other Kannuu counsel for the Federal Circuit appeal.)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Chao was listed as counsel for Kannuu Pty Ltd. during the Federal Circuit appeal in this matter.

These attorneys were actively involved as of July 2025, when the court granted Kannuu leave to file a second amended complaint, and as of October 2021, during the Federal Circuit appeal.

In the patent infringement case Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (1:19-cv-04297), the defendant, Samsung, is represented by attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

The following attorneys have been identified as representing Samsung:

• Victoria Fishman Maroulis

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA
  • Relevant experience: Argued for defendants-appellees in a related appeal concerning the forum selection clause and IPRs in the Kannuu v. Samsung litigation.

• Kevin P.B. Johnson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Relevant experience: Also represented defendants-appellees in the related appeal.

• David Cooper

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY
  • Relevant experience: Represented defendants-appellees in the related appeal.

• Marissa Rachel Ducca

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, DC
  • Relevant experience: Represented defendants-appellees in the related appeal.

These attorneys were specifically noted in relation to an appeal concerning the case, indicating their involvement in Samsung's defense throughout the litigation. While their specific roles (e.g., lead counsel) in the ongoing district court proceedings are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, their firm, Quinn Emanuel, is a prominent litigation firm known for its work in high-stakes intellectual property disputes.