Maxell, Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

I'll research this case across multiple sources before drafting.

Good foundation. Now let me verify the appellate posture, IPR linkage, and patent specifics.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and outcomes.

Good initial grounding. Now let me dig into the docket specifics, Markman, and the appeal.

Now let me find the Federal Circuit appeal and the PTAB outcomes in detail.

The litigation in chronological order

Posture at a glance: Filed 2023-09-07; tried 2025-05-19 to 2025-05-28; $111.7M plaintiff verdict wiped out by JMOL on 2025-09-18; final judgment for Samsung on 2025-09-26; now on appeal at the Federal Circuit (No. 2026-1111, noticed 2025-10-29) with Maxell moving to hold the appeal pending PTAB outcomes. Maxell has since won most of what it needs from the Board — which is precisely why it wants the appeal paused.

1. Filing and pleadings (September 2023 – early 2024)

• 2023-09-07 — Maxell, Ltd. sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) in the Texarkana Division of the E.D. Tex., Case No. 5:23-cv-00092, assigned to Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. Seven patents asserted: US 8,073,161; 8,982,086; 10,129,590; 10,176,848; 11,017,815; 11,223,757; 11,445,241. Accused functionality spanned Samsung's SmartThings home-network pairing, fingerprint unlocking, Samsung Pay, Quick Share, Bixby, and Gallery/Netflix media features, across Galaxy phones/tablets, wearables, and home appliances.
• The dispute's origin is contractual: a 2011 license between Samsung and Maxell's former parent Hitachi Consumer Electronics expired in 2021 and was not renewed — the trigger for Maxell's U.S., German, Japanese and ITC campaigns. (Patent Lawyer Magazine overview, 2025-06-24: https://patentlawyermagazine.com/samsungs-112m-patent-verdict-maxell-makes-its-mark-in-ip-enforcement/)
• Samsung answered with noninfringement and invalidity defenses and counterclaims; the eventual final judgment sweeps up "all counterclaims or other claims" (Dkt. 442 at 1, quoted in the case record at https://www.patsnap.com/resources/blog/litigation/maxell-v-samsung-smart-home-mobile-patent-infringement-verdict-patsnap/). Notably, Samsung also pressed prosecution laches against the '815 patent — an unusual, high-value defense argued at a bench trial — and the parties were simultaneously litigating in C.D. Cal. whether Samsung held a license covering the asserted patents.
• Sourcing caveat: the precise answer date and the enumerated counterclaim counts are not in the sources I could reach; treat the above as the substance, not the docket text. No motion to dismiss or § 1404(a) transfer motion appears to have been filed or granted — Samsung litigated in Marshall/Texarkana throughout.

2. Claim construction

The case reached Markman and a claim construction order issued; constructions were then fought over at JMOL. The one I can source verbatim is the '815 "character" limitation, construed as "a letter, number, punctuation mark, or other symbol or control code that is represented to a computer by one unit of information" — which became the dispositive limitation for the '815 noninfringement JMOL (Samsung's argument that neither the Gallery screen-area selection nor the Netflix "Miyagi-Do Karate" icon is a "character" succeeded). The district court's Docket Control Order and First Amended Docket Control Order were produced as exhibits in the parallel IPRs (IPR2024-00907, Exs. 2001–2002, filed 2024-08-12). The Markman hearing date and full construction order are not in the sources retrieved — I will not guess at them.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

• IPR petitions (May 2024 onward). Samsung filed IPRs against six of the seven patents-in-suit, accompanied by Sotera stipulations (filed 2024-09-12 in IPR2024-00867 and -00906; renewed 2024-10-24) that it would not pursue in E.D. Tex. any ground raised or reasonably raisable in the petitions — a deliberate move to neutralize Fintiv and preserve institution. Institution decisions issued in the early November 2024 batch (e.g., IPR2024-00867 on the '848 patent, instituted 2024-11-07; IPR2024-00906 on the '241 patent, instituted 2024-11-07); Maxell sought Director Review and was denied (2025-01-02/03). This is the reason the case was tried with PTAB trials running in parallel rather than stayed.
• January 2025 — Samsung's motion for partial stay pending the ITC. Samsung moved to stay as to the '241 patent (asserted in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1432) and the '590 patent (its near-identical continuation). In a March 2025 order, Magistrate Judge J. Boone Baxter granted the stay as to the '241 patent (unopposed by Maxell) but denied it as to the '590 patent, finding the scope of claims not materially different but that Samsung had not shown overlapping infringement theories (the ITC case targets a newer Bluetooth file-sharing implementation) or elected prior art. The '241 claims were then severed into No. 5:25-cv-00034. (RPX, 2025-09-22: https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/news/88110-maxell-s-112m-verdict-against-samsung-falls-in-posttrial-challenge)
• April 22, 2025 — joint pretrial order: Maxell committed to narrow from 18 asserted claims to no more than 10.
• May 2, 2025

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

Good initial results. Let me search more specific angles and outlets.

Let me dig for more specific article-level coverage and the appeal/PTAB developments.

Press coverage of Maxell v. Samsung, No. 5:23-cv-00092 (E.D. Tex.)

The verdict. Coverage of this case is concentrated in the legal trade press and in law-firm client alerts; I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, EFF, Patently-O, or IPWatchdog story on it despite searching the caption, the party names, and each patent number. Law360 reported on 2025-05-28 that a Texas federal jury found Samsung owes about $111.7 million for infringing Maxell patents covering functions in personal electronic devices. MLex (Nick Robertson, 2025-05-29) framed the $112 million award as the first verdict in a pair of suits flowing from the 2021 expiration of a 2011 patent license between Samsung and Maxell subsidiary Hitachi, and stressed that an ITC investigation plus litigation in Europe and Japan were still running — i.e., that the verdict was one front in a multi-forum campaign rather than the end of the dispute. Maxell's trial counsel Mayer Brown said in a May 2025 release that the jury found willful infringement of all three tried patents and awarded damages "based on a running royalty through trial," after Maxell had been in licensing discussions with Samsung since July 2021. A Mondaq analysis later broke the total down as roughly $38.1M on the '086 patent, $28.2M on the '848 patent, and $45.4M on the '815 patent, consistent with a 1% running royalty per patent through trial — a level of granularity not stated in the verdict press coverage. The only reported figure for damages sought is the verdict itself; no outlet reported Maxell's pre-trial demand, and no settlement figure exists anywhere because the case was not settled.

The post-trial reversal. Law360 tracked the swing in a series of short items: on 2025-07-22 Maxell moved to enhance the award and for a permanent injunction while Samsung moved for JMOL; on 2025-08-19 Samsung argued the infringement was not willful and the conduct not egregious enough to enhance; on 2025-09-19 the court "cleared Samsung," overriding the $112 million verdict; and on 2025-09-29 the court unsealed its rationale, which Law360 characterized as finding much of Maxell's expert testimony "conclusory" and insufficient to support infringement. That unsealed reasoning — notably that Maxell failed to show the accused Galaxy S23 has two different "registering modes," defeating the '086 claim — is quoted at length in Samsung's later stay briefing rather than in press reports. RPX reported on 2025-09-22 that Judge Robert W. Schroeder III granted JMOL of non-infringement on all three tried patents and invalidity as to two, with the substantive opinion under seal at that point. Samsung's counsel DLA Piper said on 2025-10-13 that the court also denied Maxell's requests for enhanced damages, interest, and a permanent injunction, and deferred willfulness and damages until after appeal; AKD Partners issued a near-identical release the same day. Patent Lawyer Magazine (2025-06-24) is the most explicitly editorializing account, arguing the case shows "expired licenses don't equate to expired risk" and situating the award alongside a separate $279 million East Texas verdict against Samsung from the prior month — the only piece I found that frames the number competitively rather than doctrinally.

PTAB and the appeal. Law360 reported on 2025-10-31 that the PTAB invalidated most claims Samsung challenged in two of the Maxell smart-device patents that carried the (now-overturned) $112 million verdict, and on 2025-11-03 that the Board reached a mixed result one day later, refusing to invalidate various claims of another Maxell device patent; it reported on 2026-04-28 that the Board threw out all claims Samsung challenged in a pair of Maxell video-processing patents. The Mondaq analysis adds that Maxell filed its appeal but then asked the Federal Circuit to stay it pending the PTAB proceedings, and notes the pre-trial summary judgment of non-infringement on the '590 and '757 patents. The Federal Circuit docket (No. 2026-1111, [Justia](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION
• Having successfully negotiated with a majority of the industry, Maxell was hopeful it could do the same with Samsung
• Maxell’s $112M Verdict Against Samsung Falls in Posttrial Challenge - News | RPX Empower
• High Damage Awards In 2025: Judge Gilstrap's Courtroom In The Spotlight - - Maxell v
• Maxell v. Samsung Electronics et al. | Patent Lawsuit 5:23-cv-00092 - Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
• technology media and telecom Topic - Page 32 | Law.com - technology media and telecom
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION
• Patent No
• Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al - April 28, 2026
• Trials : Law360 UK : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Intellectual Property : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• IIPLA — International Intellectual Property Law Association

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Bottom line

Coordination is straightforward here: Mayer Brown LLP (Washington, DC) is lead/plaintiff-side counsel, and Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP (Texarkana, TX) is local counsel. On appeal to the Federal Circuit (No. 26-1111), Mayer Brown's Supreme Court & Appellate group — Andrew J. Pincus — heads the appellant's appearance. One caption caveat: the E.D. Tex. docket and every notice of appearance name only "Maxell, Ltd." as plaintiff; I found no appearance for "Maxell Holdings, Ltd." (see caveats below).

---

1. Lead counsel — Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC (1999 K Street NW)

Source anchors: Dkt. 5–17, 20, 22 (notices of appearance, 9/11–9/22/2023); trial transcript, Vol. 4 (May 22, 2025), listing "FOR PLAINTIFF: Mr. Jamie B. Beaber, Mr. Kfir B. Levy, Mr. James A. (Tripp) Fussell, III, Mr. Saqib J. Siddiqui, Mr. Bryan C. Nese, Mr. Michael L. Lindinger, Ms. Tiffany A. Miller, Mr. Tariq Javed, Mr. Seth W. Bruneel, Mr. Seké G. Godo — Mayer Brown LLP, 1999 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006"; Mayer Brown press release (May 2025).

2. Local counsel — Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP, Texarkana, TX

Source anchors: Dkt. 16; Texarkana Gazette, May 31, 2025 ("Kelly Tidwell and Geoff Culbertson of Texarkana firm Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson served as local counsel for Maxell"); Culbertson/Tidwell signatures and service addresses recited in Samsung's IPR certificates of service.

3. Appellate counsel — Federal Circuit No. 26-1111 (filed Oct. 29, 2025)

Amended Entry of Appearance filed Jan. 6, 2026 (Dkt. 16) lists as counsel for Appellant Maxell, Ltd.:

• Andrew J. Pincus — lead appellate counsel; co-chair, Mayer Brown Supreme Court & Appellate practice, Washington DC; signed the opening brief (filed Mar. 16, 2026; corrected Mar. 24, 2026).
• Jamie B. Beaber, Bryan Nese, Kfir Levy, Michael L. Lindinger, Saqib Siddiqui, Alan M. Grimaldi — Mayer Brown trial-team members also on the appellate appearance.
• Minh Nguyen-Dang, Natasha Harnwell-Davis, Zachary Krislov — additional appellate counsel on the appearance. I could not independently confirm their firm/office in the sources reviewed; treat their firm affiliation as unverified.

Note: Nicole A. Saharsky (Mayer Brown, co-chair of the Supreme Court & Appellate practice) surfaces in third-party litigation databases as associated with the Maxell/Samsung matter, but she is not on the Jan. 6, 2026 amended appearance; I would not list her as counsel of record without a docket confirmation.

---

Caveats and sourcing limits

1. "Maxell Holdings, Ltd." — The docket caption, the Rule 7.1 disclosure (Dkt. 4), and all 15+ notices of appearance identify the sole plaintiff as Maxell, Ltd. I found no appearance on behalf of Maxell Holdings, Ltd. This is consistent with Maxell Holdings, Ltd. having been renamed Maxell, Ltd. (corporate name change), but I could not confirm that in a primary source for this case; the case-metadata caption appears to be a carryover. Flagging rather than asserting.
2. No in-house counsel of record found. Maxell's Japanese-side representatives were referenced at trial (e.g., "Yamamoto-san") but no Maxell legal-department attorney filed an appearance in the excerpts reviewed.
3. Docket coverage gap. The free docket extracts I could reach were last refreshed in late 2023, so individual appearance notices for several later-added team members (Lindinger, Bruneel, Ko, Koyama, Baldine, Nguyen-Dang) were not verified as docket entries — their participation is grounded in the May 2025 trial transcript and Mayer Brown's verdict release, not in a PACER filing.
4. Case posture. This action closed in the district court on ~Sept. 26, 2025 after JMOL; related severed/companion suits are 5:25-cv-00034, 5:25-cv-00052, and 5:25-cv-00097 (all before Judge Schroeder, all with Beaber/Levy appearances). Samsung's side is DLA Piper (James M. Heintz, Gianni Minutoli, Martin Ellison, Sean Cunningham, Brian Erickson), for contrast.

Key URLs: dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/5:2023cv00092/224782; dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/26-1111; mayerbrown.com/en/news/2025/05/mayer-brown-secures-112-million-jury-victory-for-maxell-in-patent-infringement-case-against-samsung; texarkanagazette.com (May 31, 2025).

I'll research Samsung's defense team across the docket, firm announcements, and PTAB filings.

Good foundation. Now let me pin down the docket-level appearances, including local counsel.

Now let me verify the individual roles and firms of the remaining names on the defense list.

Bottom line

Samsung's defense is run out of DLA Piper LLP (US) as national/lead trial counsel, with Gillam & Smith, LLP of Marshall, Texas as local counsel. That alignment is confirmed by three independent sources: DLA Piper's own 2025-10-13 victory release (which names the trial team), Legal Newsline ("Samsung is represented by DLA Piper"), and Samsung's own signed filings in the case, which carry both firms' letterheads. I found no Samsung in-house attorney appearing of record — the defense is entirely outside counsel.

One important caveat up front: I was working from a docket-aggregator counsel roster plus primary court/PTAB filings, not a live PACER docket sheet, and I hit my search budget before I could confirm appearance dates or the formal lead-counsel designation for every name. I flag the uncertain entries individually below rather than guessing.

---

Lead trial counsel — DLA Piper LLP (US)

Associates on the trial team (per the DLA Piper release and case filings):

---

Local counsel — Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, Texas)

Their signature block in this case: Gillam & Smith, LLP, 303 South Washington Avenue, Marshall, Texas 75670, (903) 934-8450 — e.g., on Samsung's Preliminary Election of Prior Art, dated June 27, 2024, filed under Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-00092-RWS.

---

Names on the counsel roster I could not verify

The docket-derived roster also lists Andrew Thompson ("Tom") Gorham, Jesse Hindman, Kathryn Riley Grasso, and Tessa Duxbury as Samsung-side counsel. I was unable to confirm firm, office, or role for these four before exhausting my search budget, and I will not invent it. Two notes: the aggregator associates Jesse Hindman with a firm called "Edleson & Hindman," which does not match DLA Piper or Gillam & Smith and needs PACER verification (possible separate/limited appearance); and Grasso/Duxbury are most plausibly DLA Piper associates, but that is inference, not a sourced fact.

Also unresolved: (1) whether Samsung's in-house legal department (Samsung Electronics America, Ridgefield Park, NJ, or Samsung Electronics' Suwon IP group) entered any appearance — I found none; and (2) who holds the formal E.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-2 lead-counsel designation, which is set by notice on the docket rather than by firm press release. My identification of Cunningham as first chair rests on the trial transcript and DLA Piper's release, not on a designation order.

---

Why this team is notable

• Institutional continuity against Maxell. The same DLA Piper bench that now defends Samsung (Fowler, Cunningham, Gibson, Jay, Panikowski) previously represented Apple against Maxell in No. 5:19-cv-00036 — and Maxell moved to disqualify DLA Piper in that case over a lateral-hire conflict, while DLA Piper argued its ethical screen was timely and that disqualification would be "highly prejudicial to Apple." I could not confirm how that motion was resolved, and I am not asserting it bears on the present case; I note it only because it explains why the Maxell–DLA relationship is unusually adversarial and why conflict screening has been a live issue in this litigation family.
• Tiered division of labor. Heintz/Minutoli/Erickson/Bhattarai run the PTAB side (the IPRs that knocked out Maxell claims), while Cunningham/Fowler/Fuehrer ran the jury trial and the JMOL win. That split is visible in the primary documents: the IPR papers list Reston/Austin counsel; the district-court papers list Palo Alto/Austin/Gillam & Smith.
• Gillam & Smith as the constant. Melissa Smith's name appears on Samsung filings across multiple unrelated Texas cases (e.g., Headwater Research v. Samsung, No. 2:23-cv-00641), confirming she is Samsung's standing East Texas local counsel rather than case-specific counsel.

---

What to pull from PACER to close the gaps

1. The Notice(s) of Appearance for Samsung (after the 2023-09-21 extension order, Dkt. 21, which set a January 2, 2024 response deadline — the Justia docket snapshot ends 2023-09-22 and shows only Maxell's appearances, so Samsung's came later).
2. Each pro hac vice motion/grant (Cunningham, Fowler, Gibson, Jay, Heintz, Kiepura, Sung, Starostka, Ellison) to fix residence and date of appearance.
3. The Local Rule AT-2 designation of lead counsel, if separately filed.
4. The Federal Circuit docket (No. 2026-1111) entry of appearance, to confirm whether Panikowski or Cunningham is principal appellate counsel — especially given Maxell's motion to stay the appeal pending the