Raytheon Company v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Raytheon Company v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:15-cv-00341 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), was an operating-company-versus-operating-company patent suit — not an NPE/PAE assertion (Stanford NPE Database and the ai-lab docket both classify Raytheon as an "Operating Company" plaintiff). Raytheon is a major U.S. defense and aerospace contractor that also designs imaging and electro-optical sensors through its Raytheon Vision Systems business; a contemporaneous Taiwanese industry write-up of the filing (iKnow/STPI, Mar. 17, 2015) described Raytheon as itself a sensor supplier, though I could not confirm that characterization from a primary Raytheon source. The defendants were four Samsung entities: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Korea), Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America LLC ("STA"). Raytheon relied for personal jurisdiction partly on STA's headquarters in the Eastern District of Texas (Compl. ¶ 8); STA was Samsung's U.S. mobile-phone arm at the time (and was being wound down into Samsung Electronics America in 2014–15 — general knowledge, not verified in this research). Raytheon's outside counsel was Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Thomas J. Filarski, Daniel S. Stringfield, Brian G. Fahrenbach, John Abramic), with local counsel in Marshall; Samsung was represented by Greenberg Traurig (

I'll research this case through web search, focusing on docket events, PTAB proceedings, and outcomes.

Let me dig into the key motions, stay, and consolidation details.

Let me confirm the IPR dockets and the Federal Circuit appeal details.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Raytheon Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:15-cv-00341 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: This case never reached Markman, summary judgment, or trial. It was filed, briefly litigated through claim-construction briefing, stayed pending four IPRs, and then dismissed on 2018-06-08 after the PTAB cancelled all 18 claims of the ’678 patent and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The district-court docket terminates with the dismissal order; the real merits contest played out entirely at the PTAB and the Federal Circuit.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2015-03-06 — Complaint (Dkt. 1). Raytheon sued four Samsung entities (SEC, SEA, SSI, STA), asserting U.S. Pat. No. 5,591,678 ("Process of Manufacturing a Microelectronic Device Using a Removable Support Substrate and Etch-Stop," issued 1997-01-07) under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) — i.e., importation/sale of products made abroad by the patented process. Accused products: the Samsung S5K2P1 and S5K3H2 back-illuminated CMOS image sensors. Raytheon pleaded that the patent had expired, so only past damages were at stake, and invoked the § 271(g) statutory presumption of infringement on the theory that defendants would not disclose their manufacturing processes. (Complaint: iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw PDF; Docket via UniCourt/PlainSite.)
• Assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (Dkt. 2, 2015-03-09). Summons issued 2015-03-10 (Dkt. 4).
• Companion case filed the same day: Raytheon Co. v. Sony Kabushiki Kaisha et al., 2:15-cv-00342, against Sony entities, Apple, and OmniVision on the same patent and the same accused-technology theory. The two cases were later consolidated under the Samsung case (2:15-cv-00341) as lead case, with Sony/Apple/OmniVision appearing as consolidated defendants/counter-claimants. (Justia docket 2:15-cv-00342.)
• Answers/counterclaims: Samsung defendants answered ~2015-05-01 (Dkt. 14, 17), each with jury demands and corporate disclosures; consolidated defendants (Sony entities, Apple, OmniVision) answered and asserted counterclaims against Raytheon in May–July 2015 (Dkt. 30, 39–47). (The precise relief sought in the counterclaims — e.g., declaratory judgment of invalidity/non-infringement — is not clearly captured in the sources I could retrieve; treat as unconfirmed.)
• Mediation: Order referring the case to mediator David Folsom (Dkt. 54, 2015-08-05); a technical advisor, David Keyzer, was also appointed.

2. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• Protective order entered 2015-08-20/21 (Dkt. 62–63); initial discovery disclosures served 2015-09-03 (Dkt. 64–67).
• Patent Local Rule contentions were exchanged (P.R. 3-1/3-2 infringement and invalidity contentions, P.R. 3-3/3-4), and Raytheon later moved for leave to amend its P.R. 3-1 infringement contentions (Dkt. 114, 2016-02-03) — a motion that was never decided on the merits (denied without prejudice, see below).
• Scheduling order entered 2015-08-17 (Dkt. 60); amended 2015-11-13/17 (Dkt. 82, 84).

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

• 2015-09-08 — Motion to change venue (Dkt. 69) filed by defendants (a transfer motion, presumably to a Samsung-favorable district). Never ruled on the merits.
• 2015-12-09 / 2016-02-17 — Claim-construction machinery: P.R. 4-3 claim-construction chart/prehearing statement (Dkt. 90, 2015-12-09), opening claim-construction brief (Dkt. 100, 2016-01-15), responsive/reply briefs (Dkt. 115, 2016-02-05), and the joint claim-construction prehearing statement (Dkt. 116, 2016-02-17).
• 2016-01-04 — Motion to stay pending IPR (Dkt. 93), together with a motion to expedite briefing on the stay (Dkt. 94; order Dkt

I'll start by checking the supplied article list against the case, then search for genuine coverage of this litigation.

Now let me check the supplied article list and search for more mainstream coverage.

Press & analysis coverage

There is essentially no mainstream press coverage of this case. Searches on the full caption, the party names in every combination, the ’678 patent number, the accused part numbers (S5K2P1 / S5K3H2), and the 2015 filing date returned no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, or Patently-O item about Raytheon v. Samsung. What surfaces instead is the primary record (Justia/PlainSite/UniCourt dockets, the PTAB final written decisions, and the Federal Circuit's Rule 36-adjacent nonprecedential opinion) plus one contemporaneous trade write-up and a handful of downstream legal-industry summaries of the appeal. No outlet reported a damages figure, a settlement payment, or any licensing term — consistent with the record, since the case was stayed before any damages discovery concluded and was dismissed after the claims were cancelled, not settled on payment terms. I found no executive statement from either Raytheon or Samsung about the case.

The one piece of contemporaneous industry reporting came from Taiwan's Science & Technology Policy Research and Information Center (科技產業資訊室 / iKnow), which published "影像感測器專利訴訟 Raytheon控告Samsung等多家廠商" on 2015-03-17, eleven days after filing. It accurately reports the mechanics: Raytheon, described as a major U.S. defense contractor, sued four Samsung entities in the Eastern District of Texas on 2015-03-06 and filed a parallel action the same day against eight Sony entities plus Apple and OmniVision, targeting the image-sensor supply chain; it identifies the ’678 patent, its 18 claims, its Hughes Aircraft/HE Holdings provenance, and the § 271(g) process-import theory resting on the statutory presumption that defendants would not disclose their manufacturing processes. The reporting goes beyond the court record in its analysis, and that is where it is most interesting: iKnow notes that Raytheon was itself an image-sensor supplier, observes that Sony, Samsung and OmniVision were the top three global sensor vendors and all major Apple iPhone suppliers, and speculates that the suits were aimed at "expanding market share or entering the supply chain" — a strategic motive nowhere pleaded in the complaint. Treat that as an analyst's inference, not a documented fact.

Coverage of the PTAB/Federal Circuit phase came from law-firm and docket-tracking publications, not newsrooms. Patterson + Sheridan included Raytheon Co. v. Sony Corp., Nos. 2017-1554/1556/1557 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2018) (nonprecedential), in its weekly Federal Circuit digest, drawing three practice points from the decision: that modifying a prior-art reference to make the resulting structure less efficient does not necessarily render it inoperable or teach away; that corroboration of an actual reduction to practice need not address every claimed element but must not contradict the assertion that all elements were reduced to practice; and that under Phillips a "comprising" preamble permits neither a construction inconsistent with the specification nor removal of claim limitations. That summary is accurate but compresses the outcome — the court affirmed the Board's obviousness holdings on Liu and Bertin while expressly agreeing with Raytheon that the Board's construction of "second substrate" was erroneous, holding the error moot. Separately, the National Law Review's PTO Litigation Center Report of 2016-04-29 carried a bare docket listing for the ’678 patent's Samsung-filed IPR (IPR2016-00962, Tech Center 2800), with no analysis.

Two points where secondary accounts diverge from the record, worth flagging: the Federal Circuit opinion and every summary of it caption the appeal Raytheon Co. v. Sony Corp. and refer to Sony Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Electronics America, and Samsung Semiconductor collectively as "Sony" — so the Samsung case number at issue here (2:15-cv-00341) does not appear in the appellate caption at all, which is why searches on this case's caption largely miss the appellate coverage. And searches on "Samsung + PTAB + Raytheon" readily return the unrelated Prisua v. Samsung ’591 patent appeal covered by IPWatchdog in 2020 — that is a different patent, different parties, and should not be conflated with this case.

On the supplied article list: I could not verify that any of the ten items in the news index discuss this litigation, and their titles and subject matter indicate they do not — they are market-research releases (global quantum technology, cybersecurity thematic intelligence, 5G in defense), an IEEE patent-portfolio ranking, IPWatchdog's general "Patent Filings Roundup" and "Other Barks & Bites" columns, and a Hacker News aggregator launch. A Raytheon mention in a patent-power ranking would concern 2024 portfolio metrics, not a 2015–18 image-sensor suit. I was cut off by a tool-use limit before I could open the IPWatchdog roundups or the IEEE piece to confirm the absence of any reference, so I state this as a title-and-subject-matter assessment rather than a verified read-through; I have accordingly cited none of them. If the index is meant to support a claim that this case drew wider press attention, that inference is not supported by anything I could find.

Sources

• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• Trials@uspto
• 2:15-cv-00341 | Raytheon Co v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd | Ex Parte
• Raytheon Company v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al - This case was last updated from U
• Raytheon Company v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al :: Texas Eastern District Court :: Federal Civil Lawsuit No. 2:15-cv-00341
• 影像感測器專利訴訟 Raytheon控告Samsung等多家廠商 - ︿Top
• Search court records on patent:(5591678)
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Raytheon Company v. Sony Corporation – CourtListener.com - Combined Opinion
• Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. et al. v. Raytheon Company - IPR2016-00739
• Raytheon Co. v. Sony Corp., 2017-1554 | Fed. Cir., Judgment, Law, casemine.com - Fed
• Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Obviousness Finding, But Warns Samsung Board’s Authority to Cancel Claims Has Limits - Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Obviousness Finding, But Warns Samsung Board’s Authority to Cancel Claims Has Limits

I'll research the counsel of record for Raytheon Company in this case using multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the plaintiff-side attorneys and their firms.

Good leads. Let me verify each attorney's firm affiliation and role, and check the docket signature blocks.

I hit the tool-use limit before I could verify every name, so I'll give you what is grounded in the sources I did retrieve, and clearly flag the gaps rather than fill them in.

Short answer

Raytheon's plaintiff-side team of record appears to have been Thomas J. Filarski (lead) and Brian G. Fahrenbach out of the Steptoe (formerly Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione) Chicago IP group, paired with a Texas local counsel, William E. Davis, III, and additional names (Stanley A. Schlitter, Daniel S. Stringfield) carried on the docket.

The names below come from UniCourt's aggregation of the E.D. Tex. docket for 2:15-cv-00341, which lists the plaintiff/consolidated-plaintiff attorneys as: Brian Gregory Fahrenbach, William Ellsworth Davis, III, Thomas Joseph Filarski, Daniel Steven Stringfield, and Stanley A. Schlitter (UniCourt docket page). I was not able to open the underlying PACER docket sheet or the complaint's signature block in this session, so admission dates, pro hac vice status, and exact roles are unverified.

Counsel detail

Thomas Joseph ("Tom") Filarski — lead counsel (plaintiff-side PTAB + district court)

• Firm/office: Steptoe & Johnson LLP (now Steptoe LLP), Chicago, IL. Previously Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, Chicago (NBC Tower, 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr.), where he spent more than two decades; his career bio notes he "contributed to the growth of the Chicago IP department of Steptoe LLP, following more than two decades at Brinks" (Addy Hart bio). Note: an April 2011 Brinks press release still described him as a Brinks partner, so the move is roughly a 2011 vintage — meaning by this 2015–16 case he is best characterized as Steptoe, Chicago.
• Experience note: Long-time chemical/pharma/medical-device and semiconductor patent litigator; M.S. chemical engineering (Michigan Tech), J.D. DePaul; named in IAM Patent Litigation 250 and repeatedly an Illinois Super Lawyer in IP litigation; author of the "Patent Defenses" chapter in BNA's Patent Litigation Series Handbook. Most importantly for this case, he is the named Raytheon respondent counsel in the parallel PTAB proceedings on the '678 patent: Sony Corp. v. Raytheon, IPR2016-00209 (IPVerse) and Samsung Electronics v. Raytheon, IPR2016-00739 (IPVerse).

Brian Gregory Fahrenbach — lead/trial counsel, patent litigation & PTAB

• Firm/office: Lexology's firm directory lists him under Steptoe LLP (Chicago), and his 2015 publications there are squarely on AIA post-grant practice — e.g., "AIA post-grant proceedings: IPR claim construction update" (Aug. 6, 2015) and "Considerations in PTAB Appeals at the Federal Circuit" (Dec. 8, 2015) (Lexology profile). This is consistent with the Brinks→Steptoe Chicago IP group move alongside Filarski.
• Experience note: IPR/PTAB-focused patent litigator who was publishing on Cuozzo and PTAB discovery practice in exactly the 2015 window of this case — i.e., the team's PTAB-facing bench strength while the case was stayed for the IPRs.

William Ellsworth Davis, III — local counsel (E.D. Tex.)

• Firm/office: Believed to be The Davis Firm, P.C., Longview, Texas; he is a well-known E.D. Tex. patent litigator. Caveat: I did not manage to verify his firm affiliation or appearance in this specific case in this session — treat the firm as likely but unconfirmed. His inclusion on the plaintiff-side list is most consistent with a local-counsel role under E.D. Tex. practice (which requires local counsel).

Stanley A. Schlitter — role not verified

• Listed on the UniCourt plaintiff-side attorney list, but I could not confirm his firm, office, or role. Flag: unverified.

Daniel Steven Stringfield — role not verified

• Same: appears on the UniCourt plaintiff-side list, but firm/role unconfirmed in this session. Both Schlitter and Stringfield read like Chicago IP-group names, but I won't assert affiliations I couldn't source.

Two important cautions

1. David Folsom is not plaintiff's counsel. The UniCourt page displays "David Folsom" prominently near the judge/attorney fields, and the docket shows a "Notice of Designation of Mediator" (Dkt. 53, 8/3/2015) and "Order Referring Case to Mediator" (Dkt. 54, 8/5/2015) (PlainSite docket). Folsom — the former Chief Judge of the E.D. Tex., then at Jackson Walker LLP — was almost certainly the court-appointed mediator in this case, not Raytheon's lawyer. Don't list him as counsel.

2. The team composition changed mid-case. The docket reflects pro hac vice appearance notices and, on 12/8/2015, an "Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney" (Dkt. 89) — so at least one attorney left the representation before the case was stayed. The plaintiff-side roster above is an aggregate of all appearances over the life of the docket, not a single snapshot.

Also worth noting on the record

• This case ran in parallel with a companion Raytheon suit against Sony (2:15-cv-00342), and the '678 patent was the subject of multiple IPRs — the institution decision in IPR2016-00962 expressly notes the '678 patent "has been asserted in Raytheon Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:15-cv-00341 (E.D. Tex.), and Raytheon Co. v. Sony Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00342 (E.D. Tex.)" (Docket Alarm copy of institution decision). The same Filarski team defended Raytheon across those IPRs, which is why the plaintiff-side counsel and the PTAB respondent counsel overlap.
• One aggregator lists the case as "Closed (02/22/16)," which appears to reflect the stay, not the dismissal; the authoritative termination date per your case metadata is June 8, 2018, after the claims were cancelled and the parties jointly moved to dismiss.

Recommended verification steps (what I'd do next with docket access)

1. Pull the complaint (Dkt. 1) signature block on PACER for the original appearance list.
2. Pull the Pro Hac Vice appearance notices (Dkt. ~70) and the motion to withdraw granted on 12/8/2015 (Dkt. 89) to fix each attorney's start/stop dates and identify who signed as lead vs. local.
3. Check the PTAB counsel-of-record pages for IPR2016-00209, -00739, and -00962 to confirm the Raytheon (patent owner) power-of-attorney designations, which will pin down Filarski/Fahrenbach and any additional Steptoe colleagues.
4. Verify William E. Davis, III's firm at the time (The Davis Firm, P.C.) and identify Schlitter and Stringfield before naming them in any filing-ready document.

I have deliberately left Schlitter's, Stringfield's, and (partly) Davis's details marked unverified rather than guess at firms or roles.

I'll research the defense counsel of record for this case. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into the docket records and firm-specific coverage.

The UniCourt list mixes in the consolidated Apple/Sony/OmniVision cases. Let me pin down Samsung-specific counsel via the docket, the answer, and Samsung's parallel IPR.