Not yet publicly available v. W&wsens Devices Inc.

W&wsens Devices Inc. was the patent owner in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00996, before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petitioner challenging the patent was a consortium of Samsung entities, including Samsung Semiconductor Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, and Samsung Electronics America Inc.. W&wsens Devices Inc. is a privately held company based in Los Altos, CA, that develops photodetector technology utilizing semiconductor-based low-cost optical sensors with photon trapping and microholes, designed for high-speed and efficient thin silicon photodetectors, with applications in 3D imaging for security and medical purposes, as well as optical communications and LiDAR solutions. Samsung is a major global technology conglomerate known for its wide range of electronic products, including smartphones and semiconductor components.

The patent at issue in this IPR was U.S. Patent No. 10,446,700, which is technically described as covering "Microstructure enhanced absorption photosensitive devices". While an IPR itself does not involve an "accused product" in the same way as a district court infringement case, W&wsens Devices Inc. has concurrently engaged in district court litigation against Samsung, alleging infringement of related patents broadly concerning "semiconductor photodetectors" and CMOS image sensors found in Samsung products such as Galaxy smartphones. It is highly probable that the technology of Patent 10,446,700 is related to the innovations W&wsens Devices Inc. is asserting against Samsung's products.

The procedural posture of IPR2025-00996 saw the petition "Not Instituted - Procedural" by the PTAB on October 17, 2025. This means the PTAB declined to proceed with a full review of the patent's validity, effectively concluding the IPR in favor of the patent owner. The timing of this non-institution is notable as it coincided with the USPTO Director reclaiming personal authority over PTAB institution decisions in October 2025, leading to a period where many IPR petitions were denied institution, often with summary notices lacking detailed reasoning. W&wsens Devices Inc. had requested discretionary denial in related IPRs, citing "settled expectations" due to the patents' age and Samsung's long-standing awareness, which may have contributed to the procedural denial. The case is notable for its direct linkage to ongoing patent disputes between an innovative photodetector technology company and a major electronics manufacturer, highlighting the use of IPRs as a parallel strategy to district court litigation, even when petitions are ultimately not instituted.

The case IPR2025-00996, involving an unnamed petitioner against W&wsens Devices Inc. and concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,446,700, has concluded at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with a non-institution decision.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 10,446,700, titled "Microstructure enhanced absorption photosensitive devices," was granted on October 15, 2019, to W&wsens Devices Inc. and is anticipated to expire on May 22, 2034. This patent relates to photosensitive devices, specifically those with microstructure-enhanced absorption characteristics for applications like fiber-optic communication.
• IPR Filing: An Inter Partes Review petition, IPR2025-00996, was filed against W&wsens Devices Inc. challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,446,700. The specific filing date of the petition is not publicly available, but the case number indicates it was filed in 2025.
• Non-Institution Decision: The PTAB declined to institute a formal review of the patent. The case status is "Not instituted." This means the PTAB did not find sufficient grounds to proceed with a full IPR trial. While the specific reasoning for the non-institution in IPR2025-00996 is not detailed in the provided search results, similar non-institution decisions at the PTAB often consider factors such as the "settled expectations" of the parties, the stage of any parallel district court litigation, and the efficient use of PTAB resources. For instance, the PTAB and Director have placed significant weight on the parties' settled expectations, particularly for older patents or where there has been longstanding notice, often favoring discretionary denial. Director review decisions have also upheld denials of institution where a parallel district court trial was likely to occur before a final written decision from the PTAB, to avoid duplication of effort and the risk of inconsistent decisions.
• Outcome: The case is concluded due to the non-institution of the IPR. There will be no further proceedings at the PTAB for this specific petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,446,700.

The plaintiff(s) in this Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00996) are Samsung Semiconductor Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, and Samsung Electronics America Inc.. The case, challenging patent 10446700 owned by W&wsens Devices Inc., was not instituted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on October 17, 2025, due to procedural reasons.

Despite extensive web searches for IPR2025-00996, the specific counsel of record representing the petitioner(s) (Samsung Semiconductor Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, and Samsung Electronics America Inc.) in this particular IPR has not been explicitly identified in publicly available search results.

The PTAB's practice in late 2025, around the time this IPR was denied institution, involved the Director issuing summary decisions for institution denials, often without specifically addressing discretionary factors or the merits of the petition. This "Not Instituted - Procedural" status indicates an early denial, which can result in less detailed public records regarding counsel compared to cases that proceed further.

While various Samsung entities frequently engage law firms such as Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, and DLA Piper for their IPR proceedings, no specific attorney or firm has been definitively linked to IPR2025-00996 in the provided search results. Therefore, the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) in this specific case remains publicly undisclosed at this time.

W&wsens Devices Inc., the Patent Owner in IPR2025-00996 (and thus the "defendant" in the context of this IPR proceeding), was represented by counsel from Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (also appearing as Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP in some filings) and Capshaw DeRieux LLP in related PTAB proceedings and parallel district court litigation. Although IPR2025-00996 was not instituted, these attorneys were listed as counsel for W&wsens Devices Inc. in other closely related IPRs by Samsung and the underlying patent infringement suit.

Here is the counsel of record for W&wsens Devices Inc.:

• Aaron M. Frankel (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP (also referred to as Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Note: Mr. Frankel is identified as counsel for W&wsens Devices Inc. in a related district court case against Samsung (2:24-cv-00854-JRG) and listed in filings for IPR2025-00993.

• Paul J. Andre (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP (also referred to as Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
  • Office Location: Redwood Shores, CA
  • Note: Mr. Andre is identified as counsel for W&wsens Devices Inc. in related district court litigation.

• Lisa Kobialka (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP (also referred to as Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
  • Office Location: Redwood Shores, CA
  • Note: Ms. Kobialka is identified as counsel for W&wsens Devices Inc. in related district court litigation.

• James Hannah (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP (also referred to as Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
  • Office Location: Redwood Shores, CA
  • Note: Mr. Hannah is listed as an attorney for W&wsens Devices Inc. in IPR2025-00993 and in related district court litigation.

• Jenna Fuller (Counsel)

  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results, but the firm has offices in New York and California.
  • Note: Ms. Fuller is listed as an attorney for W&wsens Devices Inc. in IPR2025-00993.

• Cristina Martinez (Counsel)

  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP (also referred to as Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP)
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Note: Ms. Martinez is identified as counsel for W&wsens Devices Inc. in related district court litigation.

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP
  • Office Location: Gladewater, TX
  • Note: Ms. DeRieux is identified as local counsel for W&wsens Devices Inc. in the parallel patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas (2:24-cv-00854-JRG).