Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. CM HK, Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, [[Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. CM HK, Ltd. et al., involves major electronics manufacturer Samsung seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement against two patent assertion entities. Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a South Korean multinational specializing in consumer electronics and semiconductors, and its U.S. subsidiary Samsung Electronics America, Inc., are operating companies known for their Galaxy smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices. The defendants, CM HK, Ltd. and CyWee Group, Ltd., are patent assertion entities (PAEs) that generate revenue by asserting patents rather than producing goods. CyWee Group, in particular, specializes in 3D motion-sensing and human-interface innovations. The accused products are Samsung's mobile devices, such as Galaxy smartphones and tablets, which allegedly incorporate the patented motion-sensing technology. The sole patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 10,852,846, titled "Hybrid positioning method, electronic apparatus and computer readable medium," which describes a method for determining an electronic apparatus's position by combining movement data from both micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS) and optical sensors.

The case was filed on September 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under case number 4:24-cv-06567. District Judge Jon S. Tigar is presiding over substantive motions, while Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros has handled administrative motions. Initially, Samsung brought this declaratory judgment action after CM HK, Ltd. asserted the '846 patent against Samsung's products in a separate infringement suit filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The procedural posture is currently focused on jurisdictional issues, as the court granted a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but allowed Samsung to conduct jurisdictional discovery. The Northern District of California is a significant venue for patent litigation, often considered more favorable to defendants due to its experienced bench, willingness to grant early dispositive motions (including Alice motions and stays pending inter partes review), and strict local patent rules mandating early disclosure of damages contentions.

This case is notable for several reasons, primarily reflecting broader trends in patent litigation involving non-practicing entities. CyWee Group has a history of asserting its motion-sensing patent portfolio against multiple major smartphone manufacturers, including previous litigation against Samsung, ZTE, LG, HTC, and Huawei, demonstrating a common NPE assertion pattern. The simultaneous filing of an infringement suit by CM HK in the Eastern District of Texas and Samsung's declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California highlights a strategic venue battle, with the Texas case currently stayed pending the California litigation's jurisdictional outcome. Furthermore, the '846 patent has been subject to an inter partes review (IPR) challenge initiated by Samsung (IPR202401023), consistent with prior IPRs that led to the unpatentability of related CyWee patents (e.g., US 8,441,438 and US 8,552,978) at the Federal Circuit. This interplay between district court litigation and PTAB challenges is a critical aspect of modern patent disputes, particularly concerning foundational technologies like motion sensing in mobile devices.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and current posture of the patent infringement litigation Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. CM HK, Ltd. et al. (Case No. 4:24-cv-06567, N.D. Cal.):

Key Legal Developments:

• 2024-09-18 – Filing of Complaint: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking a declaration of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,852,846 ('846 patent), U.S. Patent No. 11,698,687 ('687 patent), and other patents held by CM HK, Ltd. and CyWee Group, Ltd.
• 2024-11-01 – Parallel Texas Litigation Filed: CM HK, Ltd. filed a complaint for patent infringement against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00880), accusing Samsung of infringing the '687 Patent and the '846 Patent. Claims 1, 3, 7, and 9 of the '846 Patent were asserted in this parallel action.
• 2025-01-07 – Texas Infringement Contentions: CM HK served its infringement contentions in the parallel Texas litigation.
• 2025-01-28 – Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Filed (N.D. Cal.): CM HK filed a motion to dismiss the California litigation for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• 2025-01-28 – California Infringement Contentions: CM HK served its infringement contentions in the California litigation.
• 2025-03-04 – Texas Invalidity Contentions: Samsung served its invalidity contentions in the parallel Texas litigation.
• 2025-03-14 – California Invalidity Contentions: Samsung served its invalidity contentions in the California litigation.
• 2025-03-28 – Proposed Claim Terms Exchanged: The parties exchanged proposed terms for claim construction pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-1 in the California litigation.
• 2025-05-13 – Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Filed: The parties filed their Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Docket 72) in the California litigation.
• 2025-05-15 – Motion to Dismiss Granted with Leave for Jurisdictional Discovery: The N.D. Cal. Court granted CM HK's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Docket 73), concluding that Samsung failed to establish specific jurisdiction over CM HK. However, the Court allowed Samsung to conduct jurisdictional discovery to attempt to establish jurisdiction.
• 2025-06-00 – IPRs Filed Against Patents: Samsung filed two Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions: IPR2024-01023 challenging the '846 patent and IPR2025-01071 challenging the '687 patent.
• 2025-06-10 – Scheduling Order Deadlines Vacated: At the parties' request, the N.D. Cal. court vacated all deadlines in the scheduling order (Docket 80), likely due to the ongoing jurisdictional discovery.
• 2025-08-12 – Motion to Compel Jurisdictional Discovery: Samsung filed a motion to compel jurisdictional discovery, indicating its active pursuit of information to establish jurisdiction.
• 2025-08-13 – Motion for Sanctions Filed: CM HK filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions (Docket 93) against Samsung, alleging failure to properly construe a term before filing suit and asserting factually and legally insufficient alter ego allegations.
• 2025-08-20 – Texas Litigation Stayed: The Eastern District of Texas court stayed the parallel patent infringement case filed by CM HK against Samsung, pending the outcome of the California litigation.
• 2026-02-10 – Order Granting (Docket 160): Judge Lisa J. Cisneros issued an order granting a motion (Docket 160). The specific nature of this motion is not detailed in the available information.
• 2026-04-17 – Motion Hearing Continued: A Clerk's Notice continued a hearing for a "MOTION to Dismiss" (Docket 182) from July 2, 2026, to an unspecified later date due to Judge Tigar's calendar. The briefing schedule for this motion remains in effect.

Outcome and Present Posture:

The case remains active. The N.D. Cal. court initially granted CM HK's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, but allowed Samsung to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Samsung is actively pursuing this discovery, as evidenced by its motion to compel, while CM HK has sought sanctions. A parallel infringement suit in Texas has been stayed pending the resolution of the California litigation. Two IPRs have been filed against the asserted patents at the PTAB. A recent motion to dismiss (Docket 182) in the N.D. Cal. case suggests ongoing jurisdictional challenges or an amended complaint leading to a new dismissal attempt.

Despite extensive web searches including PACER monitor, news articles, and firm websites, the specific counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in case 4:24-cv-06567 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has not been explicitly identified from publicly available summaries of docket entries or general news about this particular case. While Samsung is a prolific litigant in patent cases and has been represented by various prominent firms in other matters, the counsel for this specific declaratory judgment action remains unconfirmed through the provided search results.

Therefore, the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) in this case cannot be provided at this time, as direct information on their appearance in the NDCA docket for this specific case was not found. Filings are not sealed, but the specific names of attorneys making an appearance for Samsung in this particular case are not explicitly listed in the search results.

The counsel of record representing the defendants, CM HK, Ltd. and CyWee Group, Ltd., in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. CM HK, Ltd. et al. (4:24-cv-06567) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California could not be definitively identified through publicly available web search results.

While the case is active and a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was granted (with leave for jurisdictional discovery), indicating active representation by counsel, specific attorney appearances for the defendants are not explicitly named in the accessible legal news articles or case summaries.

Previous litigation involving CyWee Group Ltd. in other courts and PTAB proceedings has shown representation by firms such as McKool Smith PC, Shore Chan DePumpo LLP (later Shore Chan LLP), Lewis Kohn Walker LLP, DiMuroGinsberg PC, and The Shore Firm. However, these appearances are not confirmed for the current case in the Northern District of California.

Without direct access to the PACER docket for case 4:24-cv-06567, the specific attorneys of record, their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience for the defendants, CM HK, Ltd. and CyWee Group, Ltd., cannot be identified at this time.