Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. One-E-Way, Inc.

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) initiated by [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. against a patent owned by One-E-Way, Inc. Samsung Electronics is a global technology leader, headquartered in South Korea, widely known for manufacturing a vast array of consumer electronics, including smartphones, televisions, home appliances, and semiconductors. One-E-Way, Inc., based in Pasadena, California, is described as a wireless audio innovator that designs and manufactures consumer electronic products like wireless earbuds, headphones, and wearable audio receivers. However, its business model also appears to rely significantly on patent assertion and licensing, with a history of litigation against major electronics companies, indicating it operates as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE).

The IPR, IPR2025-01516, targets U.S. Patent 10,468,047, titled "Wireless digital audio music system". This patent broadly describes a wireless digital audio system that includes a portable audio source with a digital audio transmitter and an audio receiver coupled to a headphone set, utilizing fuzzy logic for optimized digital signal processing and Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) for private listening without interference in shared spaces. The underlying context for this IPR is a patent infringement lawsuit filed by One-E-Way, Inc. against Samsung (and other companies like Anker and Dell) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 1:24-cv-01561). In that litigation, One-E-Way has accused Samsung's wireless headphones and speakers, particularly those supporting Bluetooth 5.0, of infringing its patents.

The procedural posture places this case before the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where the review was instituted on February 18, 2026, with Administrative Judge John A. Squires listed as part of the panel. The PTAB serves as a critical venue for challenging the validity of patents, offering an often faster and more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation. This case is notable due to One-E-Way's pattern of asserting its wireless audio technology patents against prominent industry players, and Samsung's use of the IPR process as a defense strategy to invalidate the asserted patent claims, thereby potentially undermining the related infringement allegations in the Western District of Texas. One-E-Way has previously engaged in similar patent enforcement actions, including a case against Apple that went to the Federal Circuit.

The user asked for legal developments and the outcome of a "patent infringement litigation," but provided an IPR case number. My search revealed that there is indeed a related patent infringement lawsuit in district court.

Here's a breakdown of the information found and how it will be organized:

I. IPR Proceeding (IPR2025-01516):

• Filing: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed the IPR petition against One-E-Way, Inc. on September 7, 2025 (some sources say Sep 8, 2025).
• Institution: The PTAB instituted the trial on February 17, 2026 (some sources say Feb 18, 2026).
• Status: The IPR is currently pending, with a scheduling order issued on March 2, 2026.
• Patent at issue: US Patent No. 10,468,047.

II. Related District Court Litigation:

• Filing: One-E-Way, Inc. sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-01561.
• Date Filed: December 18, 2024 (Bloomberg Law states December 19, 2024, but other sources specify Dec 18, 2024).
• Allegations: One-E-Way alleged that Samsung's Galaxy Buds headphones and Level Box and Sound Tower speaker lines infringe three patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047.
• Status: This district court case is active and appears to be the underlying litigation that prompted the IPR. The prompt asks for "pre-trial motions of substance — motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, summary judgment" and "Claim construction (Markman) outcomes," "Discovery milestones," "Trial events, verdict," "Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal." I need to search for these specific developments for case 1:24-cv-01561 in W.D. Tex.
• No specific outcomes beyond the filing are available in the initial search results, so I will need to search for docket activity for 1:24-cv-01561.

Given the current date is 2026-05-16, and the district court case was filed in December 2024 and the IPR instituted in February 2026, it's highly likely the district court case is still in its early to mid-stages, potentially awaiting the IPR outcome or in discovery/claim construction.

Refined Search Strategy for District Court Case (1:24-cv-01561, W.D. Tex.):

• "1:24-cv-01561 Western District of Texas docket"
• "One-E-Way Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 1:24-cv-01561 motions to stay"
• "One-E-Way Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 1:24-cv-01561 Markman"
• "One-E-Way Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 1:24-cv-01561 summary judgment"

It's important to note that the prompt asks for "patent infringement litigation" but the provided case number is an IPR. I will treat the IPR as a key legal development affecting an underlying (and now identified) district court litigation. I will present the information chronologically, integrating both the district court and IPR developments.

Let's gather more details for the district court case before summarizing.The information found confirms the existence of a district court case, which is the underlying patent infringement litigation. I now have enough information to construct the chronological legal developments and outcome.

Here's the detailed chronological summary:

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for One-E-Way, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (W.D. Tex. Case No. 1:24-cv-01561) and related IPR

This summary addresses the patent infringement litigation filed by One-E-Way, Inc. against Samsung, and the subsequent Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding initiated by Samsung challenging the asserted patent.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (District Court Litigation)

• 2024-12-18: One-E-Way, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Case No. 1:24-cv-01561. The complaint alleged that Samsung's Galaxy Buds headphones and Level Box and Sound Tower speaker lines infringe three U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047. The other patents asserted were U.S. Patent Nos. 10,129,627 and 9,107,000.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

• 2025-09-07 (or 2025-09-08): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01516, with the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047, which is one of the patents asserted in the district court litigation.
• 2026-01-08: The PTAB issued a Director Discretionary Decision to Refer in IPR2025-01516.
• 2026-02-17 (or 2026-02-18): The PTAB instituted review of U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047 in IPR2025-01516, finding that Samsung had shown a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is unpatentable.
• 2026-03-02: The PTAB issued a scheduling order for IPR2025-01516, outlining the timeline for the remainder of the IPR proceeding.

3. Pre-trial Motions of Substance (District Court Litigation)

• No specific substantive pre-trial motions (like motions to dismiss, transfer, or summary judgment) have been publicly detailed in the search results for case 1:24-cv-01561 as of the current date, beyond the initial filing. Given the IPR institution in early 2026, it is highly probable that Samsung has filed or will file a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the IPR. However, this has not been explicitly confirmed by the provided search results for this specific case.

4. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• No information regarding a Markman hearing or claim construction outcomes for case 1:24-cv-01561 is available in the provided search results.

5. Discovery Milestones

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance for case 1:24-cv-01561 are available in the provided search results.

6. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• The case is still in its early stages, and no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred.

7. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Present Posture

• The district court litigation, One-E-Way, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (W.D. Tex. Case No. 1:24-cv-01561), is currently active and pending.
• The parallel IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01516, is also active and has been instituted by the PTAB. The outcome of this IPR could significantly impact the district court litigation, potentially leading to a stay, settlement, or dismissal of claims related to U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047.

Counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in IPR2025-01516 include:

Trenton A. Ward

• Role: Lead Counsel (Petitioner Counsel)
• Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP
• Office Location: Atlanta, Georgia
• Relevant Experience: Mr. Ward is the Co-Chair of Greenberg Traurig's Patent Post-Grant Group. He brings extensive experience from his five years of service at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as a Lead Administrative Patent Judge, where he adjudicated over 250 America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceedings, including inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings. His practice focuses on patent litigation before the PTAB, District Courts, and the Federal Circuit.

While "Ward, Trenton et al." is mentioned as petitioner counsel, Trenton A. Ward is the specific attorney named in relation to this IPR and his firm. Other attorneys from Greenberg Traurig, LLP may be involved, but their names are not explicitly listed in the available public information for this specific IPR proceeding.

Counsel for One-E-Way, Inc. in IPR2025-01516

One-E-Way, Inc., the patent owner (Respondent) in IPR2025-01516, is represented by attorneys from Knobbe Martens. Gregory Donahue is identified as counsel for One-E-Way, Inc. in this proceeding. Douglas G. Muehlhauser also previously represented One-E-Way, Inc. regarding U.S. Patent 10,468,047 in a prior IPR (IPR2021-00285).

Here are the details for the identified counsel:

• Name: Gregory Donahue

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
  • Office Location: Likely Orange County, California (Knobbe Martens has a significant presence there, and One-E-Way, Inc. has been associated with Pasadena, California in previous litigation).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: While specific IPR experience for Gregory Donahue in this exact case is still developing, Knobbe Martens is a well-known intellectual property firm with extensive experience in patent litigation and PTAB proceedings.

• Name: Douglas G. Muehlhauser (Reg. No. 42018)

  • Role: Counsel (previously represented One-E-Way, Inc. regarding the same patent in IPR2021-00285). It is highly probable he continues to be involved in the present IPR given the continuity of the patent.
  • Firm: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP
  • Office Location: Likely Orange County, California.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Douglas Muehlhauser has represented One-E-Way, Inc. in prior PTAB proceedings concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047. His work includes submitting responses on behalf of the patent owner in IPRs. His firm, Knobbe Martens, is frequently involved in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings.