Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al.

Power2B, Inc. initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Power2B, Inc. operates as a technology company primarily focused on user interface innovations and interactive device technologies, holding patents related to touchscreen interactions, electromagnetic sensors, and light-based input detection systems, suggesting its role as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). The defendants, Samsung Electronics Co. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., are multinational technology giants that develop and manufacture a wide range of consumer electronics, including interactive touchscreen devices, mobile phones, and advanced sensor-based input systems, which are the accused products or technologies in this litigation.

The central patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093, titled "Displays and information input devices." This patent, along with U.S. Patent No. 8,624,850, shares a common specification and relates to interactive displays capable of determining the relative position of objects in front of them and executing corresponding functions. Specifically, the invention describes an integrated display and input device featuring a pixel array for visual output, at least one sensor designed to detect an object's position with respect to the array using reflected light, and associated circuitry to process this positional information into an input. This technology finds application in various devices, including computers, televisions, personal communicators, and other mobile devices. A key claim term, "impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot," was construed in this district court case on November 10, 2021, to mean "an area of reflected or projected radiation."

The case, filed in 2020, is currently active under the purview of Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas. This venue gained significant notoriety for patent litigation, particularly the Waco division, largely due to Judge Albright's active management and patent-friendly procedures, which historically attracted a high volume of patent infringement filings, often from NPEs. Although district-wide random assignment for Waco cases was implemented in 2022, and Judge Albright has since relocated to Austin, the Western District of Texas remains a prominent forum for patent disputes. The litigation is notable not only for involving a major technology company like Samsung but also for its extensive parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and subsequent appeals to the Federal Circuit, challenging the validity of Power2B's patents. For instance, a Federal Circuit decision on September 4, 2025, specifically addressed IPRs concerning claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093 (and 8,624,850), resulting in an affirmance-in-part, reversal-in-part, vacation-in-part, and remand of the PTAB's unpatentability findings.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al.

The patent infringement case of Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al. (6:20-cv-01183) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas is currently active, with significant developments in both the district court and parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including appeals to the Federal Circuit.

Chronological Summary of Developments:

2020

• December 23, 2020: Complaint Filed. Power2B, Inc. initiated the patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The sole patent identified as at issue in the metadata for this case is U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093.

2021

• November 10, 2021: Claim Construction Adopted (Markman). The District Court adopted a claim construction for certain terms in the case. One specific term, "impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot," was construed to mean "an area of reflected or projected radiation." This construction was later referenced by the PTAB and Federal Circuit in parallel IPR proceedings. It is important to note that while this claim construction occurred in case 6:20-cv-01183, a subsequent Federal Circuit decision (Case No. 23-1630) that reviewed a PTAB decision adopting this same construction concerned a different patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,317,170. The specific terms construed for U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093 in the district court's November 10, 2021 order are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results beyond this general reference.

2025

• February 12, 2025: Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Decision on "Impingement" Term (for a different patent). In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 23-1630), the Federal Circuit reviewed a PTAB final written decision regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,317,170, which is distinct from U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093. The Federal Circuit found that the PTAB had improperly construed the term "impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot" too narrowly. The PTAB's construction had aligned with the district court's construction in 6:20-cv-01183 for that term. The Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB's decision and remanded the IPR for reconsideration under a broader construction that would allow an object to impinge by interrupting or blocking electromagnetic radiation, not just by reflection or projection.
• March 31, 2025: Federal Circuit Decision on IPRs for Patent 9,569,093. In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B, Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 23-1629), the Federal Circuit issued a decision appealing a PTAB final written decision concerning IPRs for U.S. Patent No. 8,624,850 and U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093. For Patent No. 9,569,093, the PTAB had found certain claims (26, 29, 36–38, 44–46, 48, 49, and 56–58) were not shown to be unpatentable. Power2B cross-appealed the PTAB's finding that other claims (1, 5, 8, and 12–13) of the '093 patent were unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded the PTAB's decision. Notably, the Federal Circuit reversed the Board's finding as to claim 26 of the '093 patent. The decision involved claim construction of terms such as "detector assembly" and "predetermined degree of propinquity."
• August 14, 2025: Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied. A combined petition for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc filed by Power2B, Inc. in Federal Circuit appeals (Nos. 23-2184, 24-1399, 24-1400), which appear to relate to other Power2B patents (e.g., 7,952,570 and 8,547,364) based on a May 19, 2025 opinion, was denied.

2026

• April 15, 2026: Attorney Withdrawal. An attorney for the defendants, Bo K. Moon, withdrew as counsel of record. This indicates ongoing activity in the district court case.

Present Posture:

The district court case (6:20-cv-01183) is currently active. While claim construction has occurred, there is no public record of a trial, verdict, or final judgment for the district court case. The multiple IPR proceedings and their appeals, including the Federal Circuit's remand for Patent No. 9,569,093 in March 2025, suggest the district court litigation may have been stayed or is progressing through other pre-trial phases, awaiting the final resolution of the PTAB proceedings on remand.

Unconfirmed Details:

• Specific dates for Samsung's answer and counterclaims in the district court case are not readily available in the provided search results.
• No specific motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment with reported outcomes have been identified for the district court case.
• No significant discovery milestones beyond typical scheduling orders were found.
• The status of the PTAB proceedings for Patent No. 9,569,093 following the Federal Circuit's March 31, 2025 remand is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, though such remands typically involve further proceedings at the PTAB.

Press coverage of Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al. (6:20-cv-01183) primarily focuses on related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and subsequent appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, rather than detailed updates on the district court litigation itself. One significant development reported is the Federal Circuit's dismissal of consolidated appeals from two IPR proceedings between the parties on August 10, 2026, following an agreement between Power2B and Samsung, with each side bearing its own costs. This outcome was noted by Nowak IP Group and Fed Circuit Blog.

Earlier, in January 2026, Polsinelli, Power2B's counsel, announced a Federal Circuit win where the court affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) findings in two IPR proceedings brought by Samsung. This ruling was deemed a "significant victory for Power2B" as it preserved patent rights related to navigating and controlling handheld electronic devices, and was noted to follow "earlier Federal Circuit activity involving other Power2B patents". Prior to that, in February 2025, VitalLaw.com reported that the Federal Circuit had vacated and remanded a PTAB decision in an IPR initiated by Samsung against Power2B's U.S. Patent No. 9,317,170, not the 9569093 patent listed in the prompt. The appellate court found that the PTAB had improperly construed a key claim term, "impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot," and crucially, highlighted that the PTAB's narrow construction had aligned with a construction adopted by the district court in the parallel litigation, case No. 6:20-cv-01183 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2021).

While the case 6:20-cv-01183 itself was noted as "Filed" by IPWatchdog.com in a January 2021 roundup, detailed reporting on the district court proceedings, particularly concerning the 9569093 patent and any specific damages sought or awarded, is scarce. The available press focuses more on the appellate review of the validity of Power2B's patents through IPR challenges, indicating a significant aspect of the overall litigation strategy involved challenging patent validity at the PTAB and Federal Circuit.

Sources

• nowakipgroup.com
• justia.com
• polsinelli.com
• gjassets.com
• vitallaw.com
• casemine.com

Power2B, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Polsinelli PC in this patent infringement case.

The following counsel of record have been identified for Power2B, Inc.:

• Adam P. Daniels

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Polsinelli PC, Dallas, TX (also operates out of Kansas City, MO)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Daniels is a shareholder and an experienced patent litigator, having successfully represented Power2B in Federal Circuit appeals stemming from inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against Samsung. He was noted for his participation in oral arguments at the Federal Circuit regarding claim construction.

• Jason A. Wietjes

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Polsinelli PC, Kansas City, MO
  • Experience Note: Mr. Wietjes is a shareholder and was part of the Polsinelli team that secured a significant Federal Circuit win for Power2B in January 2026, affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's findings in IPR proceedings against Samsung.

• Mark T. Deming

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Polsinelli PC, Kansas City, MO
  • Experience Note: Mr. Deming is a shareholder who also contributed to Polsinelli's successful representation of Power2B at the Federal Circuit in the IPR appeals against Samsung.

In Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al., case number 6:20-cv-01183 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the primary defense counsel for Samsung Electronics Co. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. appear to be from O'Melveny & Myers LLP. This is based on their representation of Samsung in related appeals concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093, which is at issue in the district court case.

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

The following attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers LLP represented Samsung in the Federal Circuit appeals (2023-1629, 2023-1631, 2023-1753, 2023-1745) related to U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093, indicating their likely involvement, at least as of counsel or lead counsel, in the underlying district court litigation:

• Coke Morgan Stewart

  • Role: Lead Counsel (argued before Federal Circuit).
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Experience Note: Argued for Samsung in Federal Circuit appeals regarding the '093 patent.

• William Fink

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Represented Samsung in Federal Circuit appeals regarding the '093 patent.

• Benjamin Haber

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Represented Samsung in Federal Circuit appeals regarding the '093 patent.

• Abigail Grace McFee

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Represented Samsung in Federal Circuit appeals regarding the '093 patent.

• Nicholas Whilt

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Represented Samsung in Federal Circuit appeals regarding the '093 patent.

• Ryan Ken Yagura

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Represented Samsung in Federal Circuit appeals regarding the '093 patent.

• Thomas McClinton Harris

  • Role: Of Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Newport Beach, CA.
  • Experience Note: Represented Samsung in Federal Circuit appeals regarding the '093 patent.

Withdrawn Counsel:
Bo K. Moon has formally withdrawn as counsel of record for the defendants in this case.

While other firms like King & Spalding and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP are known for their patent litigation work for Samsung and in the Western District of Texas, specific attorneys from these firms directly linked to this particular case (6:20-cv-01183) were not explicitly identified in the available public search results.