Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC

I'll research this case across PTAB records, district court dockets, and industry coverage.

Strong initial results. Let me dig into the district court case, the accused products, and the parallel proceedings.

I have most of what I need. Let me verify the appeal numbers and the district court stay posture.

I'll research the parallel district court litigation and related proceedings for this dispute.

I found the district court case. Let me dig deeper into the docket, stay motion, claim construction, and appeal specifics.

Scope note

The case in the metadata is the PTAB IPR, but the "patent infringement litigation" it feeds is:

Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.), No. 2:24-cv-00140-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap (Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne). The '886 patent is one of four patents-in-suit in that case; the '886 FWD is now on appeal at the Federal Circuit. Below is the chronological litigation history, with the parallel PTAB track.

---

1. Acquisition and pre-suit posture (2023)

Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC ("HID") — a Texas LLC and subsidiary of Quest Patent Research Corp. (QPRC), whose sole full-time employee is CEO Jon S. Scahill — acquired a ten-patent semiconductor portfolio from Tower Semiconductor / Newfort Fab in March 2023 (recorded with the USPTO 2023-03-24). The four asserted patents ('886, '673, '609, '826) come from that portfolio. HID's only counsel of record is Fabricant LLP (Alfred Fabricant, Joseph Mercadante, Richard Cowell, Vincent Rubino, Peter Lambrianakos), with McKool Smith identified as co-counsel. (RPX, "QPRC's Harbor Island Files First Suit," 2024-05-07.)

2. Filing and initial pleadings (2024)

• 2024-02-27 — HID files the original Complaint (Dkt. 1) against both Samsung entities, jury demand, asserting four patents: U.S. 9,245,826 ('826); 7,772,673 ('673); 9,147,609 ('609); and 7,745,886 ('886). Accused instrumentalities: Samsung CMOS image sensors (e.g., S5KHM3SX CIS) for the '826/'673 patents; backside-illuminated sensors (e.g., S5K2G1XX BIS) for '609; and an Antenna Switch and Coupler die (PK5562_01) for the '886 — allegedly incorporated in the Galaxy S22 Ultra and downstream Google Pixel 7 Pro / Motorola Moto G Stylus 5G devices. (Dkts. 1–7.)
• 2024-03-05 — Samsung Electronics America served (Dkt. 10).
• 2024-03-15 / 2024-03-21 — Samsung's unopposed motion for extension and waiver of foreign service (Dkt. 11); granted (Dkt. 12), answers due 2024-06-24.
• Amended Complaint — HID later filed an amended complaint particularizing accused products (S5KHM3SX, S5KJN1, S5KGM5SX, S5KGN1SP, S5K4H7YX, S5K3J1X03, S5K2G1XX sensors; PK5562_01 switch die) and pleading direct, § 271(g), induced, and willful infringement across all four counts. (The exact filing date is not confirmed in my sources; the document is reproduced at RPX insight doc. 15755753.) Samsung's invalidity contentions confirm HID ultimately asserted: '886 claims 1, 3; '673 claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15; '609 claims 1, 2, 4, 5; '826 claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 19.

3. Scheduling, contentions and early motions

• 2024-07-18 — HID serves P.R. 3-1/3-2 Infringement Contentions (relying on SEM imaging of the accused dies).
• 2024-08-05 — Docket Control Order (Dkt. 38) entered, setting jury trial for 2026-01-05; a Discovery Order (Dkt. 39) and Protective Order (Dkt. 44) followed. The DCO directed indefiniteness arguments to be raised in Markman briefing.
• 2024-08 — HID files a parallel suit against NXP Semiconductors N.V. et al. in E.D. Tex.
• 2024-09-24 — Samsung files four IPR petitions (IPR2024-01402 through -01405), one per patent; NXP is a co-petitioner at least on IPR2024-01402 ('886).
• 2024-09-26 — Samsung serves Invalidity Contentions (P.R. 3-3/3-4), expressly incorporating all IPR grounds and reserving § 101/§ 112 positions.
• 2024-12-19 — The court DENIES Samsung's Motion to Stay Pending IPR (Dkt. 57) as "premature" (Dkt. 62), because the Board had not yet instituted. The order recites the district's "universal practice" of denying stays pre-institution.

4. Claim construction (reached the briefing stage, but no construction order)

• 2025-04-15 — The parties file the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 75), identifying disputed terms across all four patents. Notable disputes: for the '886 patent, the source/drain-junction / BOX-layer limitations; and Samsung's positions that certain terms (e.g., '826 "disposed in at least one corner of a semiconductor substrate," '826 "backside metal layer") are indefinite. Samsung submitted a Neikirk declaration (Samsung Ex. 1038) opining the '826 "in a corner" limitation is indefinite as a matter of law.
• No Markman order issued. Samsung's September 2025 related-matters update to the PTAB states that both HID district court cases "have been stayed and the court did not issue any substantive ruling before the stay" (2025-09-25 email, IPR2024-01402/-01403/-01404/-01405). So the case never reached a claim-construction ruling, expert reports, summary judgment, or trial.

5. The district court stay

Sometime after the April 2025 institution decisions — and by 2025-09-25 at the latest — the E.D. Tex. case was stayed. HID's own position (same filing) was that there had been no "developments regarding adjudication of validity or patentability" to report. The precise stay order date and docket number are not confirmed by my sources; the 2025-09-25 update is the anchor for the fact of the stay.

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings (IPR2024-01402 to -01405)

• 2024-09-24 — Four Samsung petitions filed (with NXP on the '886).
• April 2025 — All four IPRs instituted. HID's requests for Director Review of institution were denied on 2025-04-22 (Paper 14; Acting Director delegated review after then-Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart recused).
• 2026-01-06 — Consolidated oral hearing for IPR2024-01403 ('673) and IPR2024-01405 ('826) (Judges Peslak, Jung, Anderson).
• 2026-01-07 — Oral argument in IPR2024-01402 ('886); both sides requested 60 min/side (Petitioner's and Patent Owner's Requests for Oral Argument filed 2025-11-21).
• February–March 2026 — The Board issued final written decisions cancelling all claims of all four patents. Per the case metadata, the '886 FWD issued 2026-03-16; the QPRC SEC prospectus (filed May 2026) confirms FWDs "in February and March 2026 ... canceling all claims of the four patents." For '886, the FWD rested on Okashita, Burgener and Yu (anticipation/obviousness of claims 1–19).

7. Appeal and present posture (2026)

• 2026-06-01 — HID's appeal docketed at the Federal Circuit as Harbor Island Dynamic LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2026-1886 (Fed. Cir.), expressly "Appeal From PTAB," originating case IPR2024-01402 (the '886 FWD). This confirms the metadata's "final written decision; appealed" status.
• QPRC's May 2026 SEC disclosure separately states HID appealed the '673 decision and sought Director Review of the '609 and '826 decisions. (These are additional challenges to the other three FWDs; the SEC filing predates the 2026-06-01 '886 appeal, which likely explains its omission of the '886 appeal.)
• Present posture: The district court case remains stayed; there has been no trial, no verdict, no damages award, and no settlement. QPRC's own filing states the HID actions "are pending," and that HID (like QPRC generally) is operating under a going-concern qualification, with litigation financed on a contingent-fee/QPRC Finance (QF3) basis.

---

Key takeaways

1. The infringement case never got past claim construction. The only substantive pretrial ruling was the 2024-12-19 denial of Samsung's stay motion as premature (Dkt. 62). After institution in April 2025, the case was stayed.
2. The IPRs, not the district court, did the work. All asserted claims of all four patents (including all '886 claims 1–19) were cancelled by FWDs in Feb.–Mar. 2026, mooting the infringement theory as a practical matter unless the appeals succeed.
3. NXP is aligned with Samsung as an IPR co-petitioner (unsurprising given HID's parallel August 2024 NXP suit).
4. The case is now an appellate matter (Fed. Cir. 2026-1886, filed 2026-06-01), with collateral Director Review activity on the '609 and '826 FWDs.

Flags / caveats

• No contradiction with the existing summary: the appeal of the '886 FWD is corroborated by CAFC No. 26-1886 originating from IPR2024-01402. The QPRC SEC sentence mentioning only the '673 appeal is a timing artifact, not a conflict.
• Unverified specifics: the exact stay order date/docket number, the amended complaint filing date, and the instant of Samsung's answer/counterclaims (the docket listing I retrieved stops at March 2024) could not be pinned to a docket entry. Treat those as unsettled rather than as established facts.
• Party names, court, case number, and the '886 FWD date are taken from the case metadata as authoritative.

Sources: PTAB papers and exhibits at ptacts.uspto.gov and docketalarm.com (IPR2024-01402, -01403, -01405); Dkt. 62 stay-denial order (excerpted at docketalarm.com, IPR2024-01405 Ex. 2002); Dkt. 38 Docket Control Order (Ex. 2001); Dkt. 75 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement; Samsung's Invalidity Contentions; the 2025-09-25 related-matters update email; QPRC Form POS AM (SEC, 2026); RPX/Mondaq article (2024-05-07); and the ex parte/ai-lab Federal Circuit docket page for No. 26-1886.

I'll research the counsel of record for Samsung (petitioner/plaintiff side) in IPR2024-01402.

Excellent — I have the core record. Let me verify the individual attorneys' roles, the Federal Circuit appeal counsel, and any changes post-FWD.

Scope note — who "plaintiff" is here

This is important to flag up front. In IPR2024-01402 the "plaintiff-side" party is Samsung, but its procedural label is Petitioner, not plaintiff. The caption runs Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC — Samsung is Petitioner and Harbor Island Dynamic is Patent Owner. The plaintiff label only fits Harbor Island in the parallel E.D. Tex. infringement action (Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00140-JRG-RSP), which was filed Feb. 27, 2024 and later stayed.

Because the question is ambiguous, I answer both: (A) Samsung's petitioner counsel of record in IPR2024-01402 (the correct mapping for this docket), and (B) Harbor Island's counsel (the plaintiffs in the underlying litigation). I could not pull the E.D. Tex. docket sheet directly (tool-step limit), so Part B is sourced from PTAB papers that reproduce the district-court service list rather than from the PACER docket itself — treat it as well-sourced but not docket-verified.

---

A. Samsung (Petitioner) — counsel of record in IPR2024-01402

All of Samsung's counsel are from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Customer No. 22,852). No Samsung in-house attorney appears of record in any of the PTAB filings I reviewed; the powers of attorney filed Sept. 24, 2024 appoint Finnegan practitioners exclusively.

Correspondence/service addresses: joshua.goldberg@finnegan.com; abhay.watwe@finnegan.com; chen.zang@finnegan.com; biju.chandran@finnegan.com; shawn.chang@finnegan.com. The Board's orders (e.g., the Apr. 22, 2025 Director Review order, Paper 14, and the May 14, 2025 Panel Change Order) list petitioner-side counsel as Goldberg, Watwe, Zang, Chandran, and Chang — matching the table above. (Note the Director Review order contains a typo, "abhway.watwe@finnegan.com"; the correct address is abhay.watwe@finnegan.com.)

Co-petitioner NXP (joined via IPR2025-00954)

NXP Semiconductors N.V. was joined to IPR2024-01402 (grant of joinder Sept. 22, 2025). Its counsel is a different firm — Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP: Eagle H. Robinson (Austin, lead), Eric C. Green (Austin), Richard S. Zembek (Houston), and Jiang Wu (Chicago). NXP took an "understudy" role in the joined proceeding.

---

B. Harbor Island Dynamic (patent owner in the IPR; plaintiff in the E.D. Tex. case)

Two firms appear on Harbor Island's side:

Fabricant LLP — Rye, New York (411 Theodore Fremd Ave., Ste. 206 South)

• Joseph M. Mercadante — lead PTAB counsel for the patent owner; lead signatory on the Patent Owner's papers in IPR2024-01402 and listed as Respondent counsel in the Board's records.
• Alfred R. Fabricant — listed on the patent owner's mandatory notices and service lists for the -01402 family.
• Richard Cowell — backup counsel; co-signatory on patent-owner papers.

Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP — retained for the related litigation/appeal work and appearing on Harbor Island's service list:

• Eagle H. Robinson (Austin) — lead counsel for NXP in IPR2025-00954 and listed in patent-owner correspondence in the Harbor Island matters.
• Eric C. Green (Austin), Richard S. Zembek (Houston), Jiang Wu (Chicago).

Local counsel in the E.D. Tex. action is not identified in the PTAB record — I could not verify local counsel from the district docket within the tool budget, so I am not naming any.

---

C. Federal Circuit appeal (No. 26-1886)

Harbor Island Dynamic noticed appeal of the March 16, 2026 final written decision; the appeal was docketed at the Federal Circuit as Harbor Island Dynamic LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 26-1886 (filed June 1, 2026; Samsung opposed an extension of time on June 5, 2026, PTAB Paper filed under Rule 90.3(c)). Appellate counsel of record for either party has not been confirmed from the sources I could reach — the CAFC docket showed counsel fields empty at the time of indexing. Do not assume the Finnegan PTAB team is also the Federal Circuit team, though Goldberg's Finnegan bio expressly lists Federal Circuit appeals from the PTAB as part of his practice.

---

Discrepancies / caveats to flag

1. "Plaintiff" vs. "Petitioner": the metadata lists Samsung as plaintiff(s), which is consistent with the IPR caption (Samsung first) but not with litigation nomenclature. In the E.D. Tex. case, Harbor Island is the plaintiff and Samsung the defendant. Confirm which party you actually want before relying on Part A or Part B.
2. Harding and Saidman are documented on the related (‑01404/‑01405) mandatory notices, not the ‑01402 docket; I have labeled them accordingly rather than asserting them as -01402 counsel of record.
3. No in-house Samsung counsel appeared in any PTAB paper I reviewed; if Samsung Legal has a supervisory role, it is not on the record in this IPR.
4. I did not obtain the E.D. Tex. docket sheet directly, so district-court appearances (and any local counsel) are unverified.

Key sources: PTAB Papers via P-TACTS and Docket Alarm (Petitioner's Request for Oral Argument, Nov. 21, 2025; Director Review Order, Paper 14, Apr. 22, 2025; Panel Change Order, Paper 15, May 14, 2025; Petitioners' Updated Mandatory Notices, Dec. 10, 2025); NXP's Motion for Joinder in IPR2025-00954; PTAB case docket (ipverse.greyb.com / ai-lab.exparte.com); Finnegan attorney bios (finnegan.com); AIBLA/AIPLA speaker profiles.

I'll research counsel of record for Harbor Island Dynamic, the patent owner/respondent in this IPR (and any parallel district court case).

Good — I have the PTAB counsel list. Now let me verify the Federal Circuit appeal counsel and the parallel district court representation.

Now let me verify the district court docket counsel and the Federal Circuit appeal representation.

Counsel of Record — Framing Note

"Defendant" needs unpacking here, because the two proceedings run in opposite directions:

• In IPR2024-01402 (the captioned case), Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC ("HID") is the Patent Owner / Respondent — i.e., the party defending the '886 patent. That is the functional "defendant" in this PTAB case.
• In the parallel district court case, the roles flip: Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00140-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., filed Feb. 27, 2024), HID is the plaintiff and Samsung is the defendant (Justia docket).

I give both sides below, leading with HID's PTAB counsel.

---

1. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC — PTAB counsel of record (the respondent)

Source: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3), filed Oct. 4, 2024, and the Patent Owner's Power of Attorney (via PTACTS/PTAB public documents).

Also served on the Patent Owner's side (Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP). Certificates of service and the Petitioner's service lists in this IPR identify the following as "Counsel for Patent Owner Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC":

⚠️ Caveat on the NRF group: they appear on HID's service lists, and their names are associated with the related-s matters correspondence, but the formal § 42.8(b)(3) counsel-of-record disclosure names only the three Fabricant attorneys, and the Board's own orders list only Mercadante and Cowell as "For PATENT OWNER." I could not confirm from the sources retrieved that Robinson/Green/Zembek/Wu formally entered an appearance in the IPR itself. They are most likely HID's district court litigation counsel (consistent with NRF's Austin/Houston presence and the E.D. Tex. venue), listed in the IPR for service purposes. Treat their IPR status as unconfirmed.

---

2. Harbor Island Dynamic — district court counsel (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00140)

Per the docket's attorney-appearance entries (all filed Feb. 27, 2024):

In-house: no in-house counsel for HID has surfaced in either docket. HID is a patent-monetization entity affiliated with Quest Patent Research Corp. (QPRC); QPRC's SEC filings describe HID's enforcement campaign and confirm that HID funds litigation through contingent-fee arrangements with outside counsel rather than a staffed legal department (SEC Form POS AM). So no in-house attorney should be listed.

---

3. The opposite side (for completeness)

Samsung — Petitioner in IPR2024-01402; defendant in the district court case. All Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP:

• Joshua L. Goldberg (Reg. No. 59,369) — lead counsel (Washington, DC)
• Alexander E. Harding, Chen Zang (Washington, DC); Abhay A. Watwe, Biju I. Chandran (Reston, VA); Shawn S. Chang (Atlanta, GA) — back-up counsel

NXP Semiconductors N.V. was joined as a petitioner via joinder in IPR2025-00954 (granted Jan. 6, 2026); NXP's papers in this proceeding were served through the same Finnegan team.

---

4. Post-FWD / appellate posture — counsel not confirmed

• HID filed its Notice of Appeal on May 26, 2026, after missing the May 18, 2026 deadline; the Director (delegated to the Solicitor) granted an eight-day extension on excusable-neglect grounds on June 11, 2026. The appeal is docketed at the Federal Circuit as Appeal No. 26-1886 (Director's decision PDF).
• I could not verify the Federal Circuit appearance(s) for HID's appeal from the sources retrieved. Given the pattern, expect Fabricant LLP (Mercadante/Cowell) to handle the appeal, possibly with the NRF team, but I will not state that as fact without the Fed. Cir. docket.

---

5. Contradiction to flag against the existing case summary

The prior summary states the FWD held all claims 1–19 unpatentable. The Director's June 11, 2026 order characterizes the FWD differently: it "determined that the Petitioner had shown claims 3 and 8–19 unpatentable." The oral-argument transcript (Jan. 7, 2026) also references claims having been "cancelled" and Claim 1 no longer being at issue, which suggests some claims were disposed of by disclaimer and/or the Patent Owner's July 7, 2025 unopposed motion to amend. The "all claims 1–19" statement in the earlier summary appears inaccurate and should be reconciled against the FWD text (Paper 22-level document) before it is relied on.

Unsourced/unconfirmed items: NRF attorneys' formal IPR appearance status; the outcome of HID's motion to amend; and appellate counsel of record for Appeal No. 26-1886.