Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. AQ Corporation

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2026-00234, involves a challenge by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") against a patent held by AQ Corporation. Samsung is a global multinational electronics company known for manufacturing and selling a wide range of products including smartphones, televisions, home appliances, and semiconductors. AQ Corporation is a global manufacturer of components and systems for industrial applications, specializing in areas such as electric cabinets, wiring systems, inductive components, and sheet metal processing. The specific accused products or technology are not explicitly detailed in the IPR petition itself, as IPRs focus on patent validity rather than infringement. However, given the nature of the challenged patent, the dispute likely relates to antenna technology used in electronic devices.

The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 11,728,564, titled "Smartphone Antenna Module." This patent describes a smartphone antenna module designed to overcome space constraints within devices by arranging multiple "coil antenna patterns" in concentric rings on both the top and bottom surfaces of a substrate, with electrical connections between corresponding patterns on opposing sides established through vias. Samsung's petition challenges all 22 claims of the '564 patent, asserting them as obvious over prior art references that combine concentric coils with aligned routing gaps.

This case is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with the petition filed on January 26, 2026. The PTAB provides a specialized forum for challenging patent validity based on anticipation or obviousness, offering a potentially faster and less costly alternative to traditional district court litigation. The Board is expected to issue a decision on whether to institute the IPR within three months after the patent owner's preliminary response deadline, and, if instituted, a final written decision within 12 months. This case is notable as it features two operating companies, Samsung and AQ Corporation, rather than a non-practicing entity (NPE) asserting patents. Samsung has filed several other IPRs against AQ Corporation on the same date, challenging related patents, suggesting a concerted effort to invalidate a portion of AQ Corporation's patent portfolio pertinent to technology used in Samsung's products.

Current Posture: Inter Partes Review Pending; No Parallel District Court Litigation Identified

This case, IPR2026-00234, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding initiated by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") against AQ Corporation. The IPR challenges claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,728,564, titled "Smartphone Antenna Module." The petition was filed on January 26, 2026, and the IPR is currently in a "Pending" status, awaiting a decision on institution from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Despite extensive searches, no parallel district court patent infringement litigation has been identified where AQ Corporation has asserted U.S. Patent No. 11,728,564 against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. or Samsung Electronics America, Inc. It is possible that the IPR was filed proactively by Samsung in anticipation of potential litigation or for strategic reasons unrelated to an active infringement suit.

Key Legal Developments:

• 2026-01-26: IPR Petition Filed. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00234) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,728,564. The petition specifically targets claims 1-22 of the patent.
• Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 11,728,564, titled "Smartphone Antenna Module," describes an antenna module designed to address space limitations in smartphones by arranging multiple "coil antenna patterns" in concentric rings on both surfaces of a substrate, with electrical connections through vias.
• Grounds for Unpatentability: Samsung's petition asserts that claims 1-22 are unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The primary arguments for obviousness are based on two grounds:
  1. Claims 1-22 are obvious over Seong in view of Kang and Cho.
  2. Claims 1-22 are obvious over Ahn in view of 721Lee.
     The arguments detail how the prior art references disclose or suggest the features of the challenged claims, including the arrangement of concentric coils, radially-extending aligned gaps, and the use of vias to connect coils on opposing surfaces.
• Current Status: The IPR is currently listed as "Pending," indicating that the PTAB has not yet made a decision on whether to institute the review. Under PTAB procedures, an institution decision is typically issued within six months of the preliminary response or the last date for filing a preliminary response. Given the filing date, a decision on institution would be expected in mid-2026.

The specific counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in IPR2026-00234 has not been definitively identified through publicly available web searches of PTAB dockets or related legal news. Filings that would explicitly name counsel, such as a Power of Attorney or Notice of Appearance for this particular IPR, were not retrieved in the search results.

However, based on a Power of Attorney document filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in a related Inter Partes Review concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,443,344 (identified in search result), the law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP represents Samsung in PTAB proceedings. It is highly probable that some or all of the attorneys listed below, or other attorneys from the same firm, are representing the petitioners in IPR2026-00234.

Here are the attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers LLP identified in the aforementioned related IPR Power of Attorney document, along with their firms, office locations, and known patent litigation experience:

• William M. Fink

  • Role: Lead Counsel (in related IPR)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: O'Melveny's Intellectual Property practice is noted for handling complex patent infringement matters across various technologies, including defending clients in the ITC, U.S. District Courts, and USPTO proceedings.

• Caitlin Hogan

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in related IPR)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: O'Melveny's attorneys are described as having deep knowledge and experience in patent litigation across various technologies, including hardware, software, and digital technology.

• Raj Paul

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in related IPR)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: O'Melveny is recognized for its strong foothold in major U.S. patent litigation venues and for handling patent disputes for leading technology companies.

• Brian Cook

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in related IPR)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: The firm's IP and Technology Practice handles complex patent infringement matters for world-leading technology companies.

• Nicholas Whilt

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in related IPR)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: O'Melveny attorneys have experience in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the USPTO.

• Benjamin Haber

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in related IPR)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Experience Note: O'Melveny is recognized for successfully defending clients in patent cases and IPRs.

Despite diligent web searches across various legal databases, news sources, and the USPTO's public information portals, the specific counsel of record representing AQ Corporation in IPR2026-00234 challenging U.S. Patent 11728564 could not be publicly identified.

While the case details, including the parties involved (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. as petitioners and AQ Corporation as patent owner) and the patent at issue, are publicly available, detailed attorney representation for this specific IPR is not readily accessible through general web searches. Platforms like RPX Empower list the case but require a subscription to view counsel information. The Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) is the official electronic filing system for PTAB proceedings and would contain this information, but direct public access to specific docket entries detailing counsel appearances for individual cases often requires an account or more direct navigation within the system.

Therefore, based on the publicly available information, the counsel of record representing AQ Corporation in IPR2026-00234 remains unconfirmed. Access to the official P-TACTS docket for IPR2026-00234 would be necessary to identify the attorneys.