Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

This patent infringement litigation, Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., involves Japanese electronics and technology company Maxell, Ltd. as the plaintiff and South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the defendant. Maxell, an operating company with a robust intellectual property portfolio spanning consumer electronics, battery technology, and optical components, proactively licenses its IP and is prepared to enforce its rights through litigation when necessary. Samsung is a major global operating company known for a wide array of consumer electronics, including smartphones, tablets, smart home hubs, and various components. Maxell alleges that Samsung's personal electronic devices, such as Galaxy smartphones and tablets, SmartThings smart home hubs, and other smart home appliances, infringe its patents. The specific accused technologies relate to various features including user interface technology, multimedia processing, smart networking, and innovative methods for unlocking devices, locating recordings, and managing digital data.

In this particular case (5:25-cv-00052-RWS), Maxell asserts ten patents, with US10783228 being one of them. Patent US10783228 is generally directed to an "information processing device, application software start-up system, and application software start-up method," which improves biometric authentication by incorporating emotional feature information to determine a user's mental state and intention for an operation, beyond simple user verification. The case is filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Texarkana Division, before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. The Eastern District of Texas is historically a popular venue for patent litigation due to its reputation as a "rocket docket" with a fast pace and local rules often perceived as plaintiff-friendly, attracting patent assertion entities or companies with strong IP monetization strategies. The case is currently stayed, as indicated in the case metadata.

This litigation is notable as it is part of a broader, global dispute where Maxell is actively enforcing its patent portfolio against Samsung in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, Germany, Japan, and before the US International Trade Commission. Samsung has responded to this specific case by filing motions to stay the proceedings pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenges for all ten asserted patents, a common defense strategy against infringement claims. Maxell's history of asserting patents related to mobile technologies against other major companies like Apple and ZTE, often following the expiration of licensing agreements, underscores its consistent strategy of monetizing its intellectual property through litigation when licensing efforts are unsuccessful.

The patent infringement litigation Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., case number 5:25-cv-00052-RWS, in the Eastern District of Texas, has seen several key developments, primarily revolving around motions to stay pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and current posture:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025-04-21): Maxell, Ltd. filed its complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. on April 21, 2025, asserting ten patents, including US10783228. The specific contents of Samsung's answer and any counterclaims are not detailed in the available snippets, though an IPR document mentions that "the Complaint and Answer had already been filed" by September 5, 2025.
• Docket Control Order (2025-08-18): The court issued an "Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art" on August 18, 2025, in response to the parties' Partially Opposed Joint Motion for Entry of Docket Control Order and Focusing Order. This order aimed to streamline the litigation by setting limits on asserted claims and prior art references.
• Initiation of Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2025-08-27 to 2025-10-12): Samsung initiated multiple IPR proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging Maxell's asserted patents.
  • IPR2025-01309 was filed by Samsung against Maxell on August 27, 2025.
  • IPR2025-01312 was filed on August 28, 2025.
  • IPR2025-01310 was filed on October 12, 2025.
    These IPR petitions challenged all 63 asserted claims across all 10 Maxell patents involved in the district court litigation.
• Motion to Stay Pending IPR (2025-10-24): Samsung filed a "Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review" on October 24, 2025, requesting that the district court litigation be stayed pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings.
• PTAB Institution Decisions (2026-02-09 to 2026-03-22): The PTAB decided to institute review for the challenged patents:
  • "Institution Decision: Grant" for IPR2025-01309 was issued on February 9, 2026.
  • "Institution Decision: Grant" for IPR2025-01312 was also issued on February 9, 2026.
  • "Institution Decision: Grant" for IPR2025-01310 was issued on March 22, 2026.
• Current Posture: Case Stayed: While the exact date of the order granting the stay is not explicitly available, the case is currently stayed, as noted in the case metadata and implied by the active IPRs and Samsung's motion to stay. The granting of institution for multiple IPRs likely led to the stay of the district court case.

Given the stayed status and the ongoing IPR proceedings, the case has not progressed to claim construction (Markman), discovery milestones of strategic significance beyond the initial docket order, trial events, or final judgments. The outcome of the IPRs will be a significant factor in determining the future course of this litigation.

The counsel of record representing Maxell, Ltd. in Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., case number 5:25-cv-00052-RWS, could not be definitively identified from the provided public web search results. While several documents from Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Samsung against Maxell's patents explicitly reference district court case 5:25-cv-00052-RWS, these snippets do not directly name the attorneys who have entered an appearance for Maxell in that specific civil action.

However, Maxell, Ltd. has been actively involved in other patent litigation against Samsung and other technology companies in the Eastern District of Texas, and prominent counsel has represented them in those matters:

• Mayer Brown represented Maxell Ltd. in a related case against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., case number 5:23-cv-00092-RWS, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In this case, Mayer Brown secured a $111.7 million jury verdict for Maxell in May 2025, although the verdict was later overturned in part in September 2025. The IP team for Mayer Brown in that case included partners such as Jamie Beaber (Washington D.C. office, lead counsel), Alan Grimaldi, Kfir Levy, James Fussell, Saqib Siddiqui, Bryan Nese, Michael Lindinger, Robert Pluta, and Amanda Streff Bonner, along with counsel Tiffany Miller, Paul Baldine, and Alison Gelsleichter, and several associates across their Washington D.C. and Chicago offices.
• Demetrios Anaipakos (Partner, Alavi Anaipakos, Houston, TX) is recognized as a top civil trial lawyer with nearly three decades of experience in patent and complex commercial litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. He has been involved in cases with damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars and has achieved significant patent judgments.
• Daniel Scardino (Scardino LLP, Austin, TX) has extensive experience as lead counsel in federal court intellectual property litigation, including patent lawsuits in Texas. He secured a nearly $25 million jury verdict against Apple in a federal court case in 2014 and has secured recoveries for his clients in excess of $150 million.
• Christopher V. Goodpastor (Partner, DiNovo Price LLP, Austin, TX) is a trial lawyer specializing in patent and antitrust litigation. He has served as lead counsel in numerous high-stakes patent matters, including securing a jury verdict against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. related to data transfer between smartphones and computers. He also handles Inter Partes Reviews before the PTAB and was named a top-performing attorney representing patent owners.

While these attorneys and firms are prominent in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and have represented Maxell in related matters, the specific appearance of any of them as counsel of record in Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., case number 5:25-cv-00052-RWS, cannot be confirmed without direct access to the full docket entries such as attorney appearance forms.

Despite extensive web searches against publicly available sources, a definitive, directly sourced list of outside counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Case No. 5:25-cv-00052-RWS, is not explicitly available in the provided snippets. The case is currently stayed.

However, the following information can be provided:

In-House Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.:

• Matthew Bathon

  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm/Location: Samsung Electronics
  • Experience Note: Coordinates Samsung's International Trade Commission (ITC) and district court dockets, with a practice focused on Section 337 investigations and IP disputes in district courts. [cite: 3 in previous steps]

• Phillip Lee

  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel, US IP Center
  • Firm/Location: Samsung Electronics
  • Experience Note: A veteran litigator with experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing across various technologies, managing a docket of patent cases with outside counsel and negotiating settlements. [cite: 4 in previous steps]

Likely Outside Counsel (Based on Related Litigation):

While not directly confirmed as counsel of record in case 5:25-cv-00052-RWS from the current search results, DLA Piper is highly probable to be representing Samsung based on their representation in closely related patent litigation in the same district against Maxell. DLA Piper secured a victory for Samsung in Maxell Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Case No. 5:23-cv-00092-RWS in the Eastern District of Texas, overturning a $112 million jury verdict for Maxell in October 2025. [cite: 2 in previous steps]

The DLA Piper team involved in the 5:23-cv-00092-RWS case included:

• Sean Cunningham (Partner, Washington, DC) [cite: 2 in previous steps]
• Erin Gibson (Partner, Washington, DC) [cite: 2 in previous steps]
• Erik Fuehrer (Partner, Palo Alto) [cite: 2 in previous steps]
• Mark Fowler (Partner, Palo Alto) [cite: 2 in previous steps]
• Brian Erickson (Partner, Austin) [cite: 2 in previous steps]
• Michael Jay (Partner, Los Angeles) [cite: 2 in previous steps]
• James Heintz (Partner, Reston) [cite: 2 in previous steps]
• Gianni Minutoli (Partner, Reston) [cite: 2 in previous steps]
• Helena Kiepura (Partner, Washington, DC) [cite: 2 in previous steps]

A direct review of the official docket for 5:25-cv-00052-RWS via PACER would be required to identify all attorneys who have filed an appearance in this specific case.