Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al. v. AQ Corp

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") have filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against AQ Corp, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,303,011. Samsung, a South Korean multinational conglomerate, is a major operating company involved in consumer electronics, IT and mobile communications, and device solutions, including semiconductors, smartphones, and displays. AQ Corp, the patent owner, appears to be an entity involved in NFC antenna and unified solution provision for smartphone makers. While some search results also suggest an AQ Corp in diversified metals and mining, the patent's classification within "Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components" (Tech Center 2800) strongly aligns with the NFC technology description. This suggests that AQ Corp is likely a patent assertion entity (PAE) or a non-practicing entity (NPE) that seeks to monetize its patent portfolio, as is common in IPR challenges initiated by large operating companies like Samsung.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,303,011, generally describes a system and method related to signal processing. More specifically, the patent abstract indicates it involves "a method and apparatus for improving radio communications, and more particularly, to a method and apparatus for processing signals in a manner that improves the efficiency and reliability of multi-user radio transmissions." This technology relates to wireless communication and signal interference reduction. While there isn't a direct "accused product" in an IPR, such proceedings are often a defensive maneuver by companies like Samsung in response to underlying patent infringement allegations, which would typically target Samsung's vast array of wireless communication devices.

This case is currently pending at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under case number IPR2026-00231, having been filed on January 26, 2026. Samsung's choice to challenge the patent's validity at the PTAB is a common strategy for large operating companies facing assertions from patent owners, particularly NPEs. The PTAB offers a specialized forum for patent validity challenges, often providing a faster and more cost-effective avenue compared to district court litigation. The case is notable for its potential to impact the landscape of wireless communication technology patents, especially concerning signal processing and multi-user radio transmissions, and highlights the ongoing trend of major technology companies utilizing IPRs to address patent assertions. Samsung has also filed another IPR (IPR2026-00232) against AQ Corp for a related patent (11495875), further indicating a broader dispute between the parties.

The inter partes review (IPR) case IPR2026-00231, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,303,011, is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This proceeding was initiated by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics America Inc. against AQ Corp.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and the current posture of this IPR and any related proceedings:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (IPR Petition)

• IPR Petition Filed (2026-01-26): Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics America Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00231, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,303,011, owned by AQ Corp. This marks the initiation of the IPR proceeding.

2. Parallel Proceedings & Related Filings

• Related IPRs Filed (2026-01-26): On the same day, Samsung also filed another IPR petition, IPR2026-00232, against AQ Corp challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,495,875. This indicates a broader challenge by Samsung to AQ Corp's patent portfolio.
• Absence of Identified Parallel District Court Litigation: As of the current date, public searches have not identified a specific patent infringement lawsuit in district court directly involving Samsung, AQ Corp, and U.S. Patent No. 11,303,011. The IPR appears to be the primary active proceeding concerning this patent between these parties. However, IPRs are often filed in response to or in anticipation of district court litigation.

3. Pre-Institution Phase – PTAB Discretionary Considerations

• Pending Status: IPR2026-00231 is currently in the "Pending" status at the PTAB. This means the Board has not yet issued a decision on whether to institute the inter partes review.
• Changes in IPR Institution Policy: Recent policy changes at the USPTO are highly relevant to this pending IPR. Effective October 20, 2025, the USPTO Director now personally decides whether to institute IPR and post-grant review (PGR) trials, a shift from the previous practice where merits panels made these decisions.
• New Discretionary Denial Factors: The Director has also introduced new discretionary factors for institution decisions. A memorandum issued on March 11, 2026, directs the PTAB to consider factors such as domestic manufacturing presence, investment in American manufacturing operations, and small business status when deciding whether to institute an IPR.
• Precedential Institution Denial: On May 14, 2026, the Director issued a precedential ruling in a separate case (IPR2026-00097, Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Kurin, Inc.) denying institution. This decision emphasized that IPRs are intended as an alternative to district court litigation, not a "second bite at the apple" to relitigate validity after a district court loss, and highlighted broader public-interest considerations in institution decisions.
• Declining Institution Rates: The institution rate for IPRs and PGRs has significantly decreased, from 66-68% in fiscal years 2022-2024 to 50% in FY 2025, and further to 37% year-to-date in FY 2026 (through February 2026). This trend suggests a more stringent approach to instituting IPRs.
• Expected Institution Decision: Typically, a decision on institution for an IPR is due within six months of the Patent Owner's preliminary response. Given the petition was filed on January 26, 2026, the institution decision for IPR2026-00231 is expected around July 2026 or later, after AQ Corp has had an opportunity to file its preliminary response.

4. Claim Construction, Discovery, Trial Events, and Post-Trial Motions

• As IPR2026-00231 is currently in the pre-institution phase and remains pending, the stages of claim construction (Markman), discovery, trial events (oral hearing), and any post-trial motions (such as motions to amend claims or a request for rehearing of a final written decision) have not yet occurred.

5. Final Disposition or Present Posture

• Present Posture: IPR2026-00231 is active and "Pending" at the PTAB. The next significant development will be the PTAB's decision on whether to institute the inter partes review.

6. Effect of Parallel PTAB Proceedings on Litigation
While no direct district court litigation involving patent 11303011 and these parties has been identified, IPRs can significantly impact parallel district court proceedings. For example, in the case of Secure Communication Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex., Case No. 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP), Samsung filed IPRs against patents asserted in the district court litigation (e.g., IPR2025-01049). The parties subsequently reached a Patent License Agreement on August 7, 2025, leading to the dismissal of the district court litigation with prejudice and joint motions to terminate the IPR proceedings. This demonstrates how IPRs can serve as a strategic tool leading to settlements and the resolution of patent disputes.

As of May 29, 2026, the specific counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics America Inc (Petitioners) in IPR2026-00231 cannot be definitively identified from the publicly available search results.

In inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), petitioners are required to file "Mandatory Notices" as part of their petition, which includes identifying lead and back-up counsel, along with a Power of Attorney. Since IPR2026-00231 was filed on January 26, 2026, these documents would have been submitted shortly thereafter.

Without direct access to the official PTAB docket for IPR2026-00231, the precise attorneys and their firms for this specific case remain unconfirmed. Samsung frequently engages prominent law firms for its PTAB challenges, with past IPRs showing representation by firms such as O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

Despite several web searches aimed at identifying the counsel of record for AQ Corp in IPR2026-00231, specific attorney names, roles, or firms representing the defendant have not been publicly disclosed or readily available through general searches of PTAB dockets, legal news, or firm websites.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) IPR2026-00231, filed by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al. against AQ Corp challenging patent 11303011, is currently pending at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While the case's existence and parties involved are confirmed, detailed docket entries that would typically list appearances of counsel for the patent owner (AQ Corp) are not immediately accessible via the executed web searches. The USPTO's Open Data Portal provides access to PTAB decisions and trial documents, including a "Counsel Name" search filter, but direct querying for IPR2026-00231 did not yield specific attorney information for AQ Corp in the provided search results.

Therefore, at this time, the counsel of record representing AQ Corp in IPR2026-00231 cannot be identified from the available public information. It is possible that the filings are sealed, or the counsel has not yet made a publicly recorded appearance that is easily searchable outside of a direct PTAB docket access system.