Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Raytheon Company

I'll research this case across PTAB records, district court dockets, and legal press.

Let me dig into the district court litigation and its disposition, plus confirm the patent details and appeal.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and their businesses. This proceeding is not a district-court infringement suit but the PTAB leg of one: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.), and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively "Samsung") are the petitioners, and Raytheon Company is the patent owner. Samsung is a Korean operating company — the world's largest memory/display maker and, critically here, one of the top global suppliers of CMOS image sensors. Raytheon is a Waltham, Massachusetts–based defense and aerospace prime (now RTX Corporation following the 2020 Raytheon–United Technologies merger), which also operates an imaging-sensor business (Raytheon Vision Systems). Neither side is an NPE/PAE: this is an operating-company-vs-operating-company fight, but with a "legacy portfolio" flavor — the ’678 patent did not originate at Raytheon. It was originally assigned to Hughes Aircraft Company and passed through HE Holdings, Inc., which Raytheon acquired in December 1997, so Raytheon's assertion was a monetization of a patent it inherited via M&A rather than one it developed. (iKnow/STPI case note; Institution Decision, Paper 12, Aug. 24, 2016)

Accused technology and the patent. On March 6, 2015 Raytheon filed two parallel E.D. Tex. complaints — Raytheon Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 2:15-cv-00341 (the case underlying this IPR) and Raytheon Co. v. Sony Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00342, which also named Apple Inc. and OmniVision Technologies as downstream defendants; the two suits were later consolidated. The accused Samsung products were the S5K2P1 and S5K3H2 back-illuminated ("BSI") CMOS image sensors and "other microelectronic devices made by the ’678 Patent Processes." Because the accused sensors were fabricated abroad, Raytheon pleaded infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) (importation of products made by a patented process), plus direct, induced and contributory infringement, and sought joinder of the defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 299; the complaint also relied on the statutory presumption of process infringement where the defendant declines to disclose its manufacturing process. Notably, the complaint concedes the patent had already expired: the ’678 patent issued January 7, 1997 on an application filed June 7, 1995 (pre-URAA), giving a term of 17 years from issuance that ran out in January 2014 — roughly 14 months before suit was filed — so the case was purely a backward-looking damages action within the § 286 six-year window. (Raytheon v. Samsung complaint; Sony/Apple/OmniVision docket, 2:15-cv-00342)

• U.S. Patent No. 5,591,678 — "Process of Manufacturing a Microelectronic Device Using a Removable Support Substrate and Etch-Stop" (18 claims, 3 independent). One-line sketch: a method of fabricating a microelectronic device by building circuitry on a wafer that overlies an etch-stop layer, bonding that wafer to a second substrate, then etching away the original etchable layer down to the etch stop — i.e., the wafer-bonding-and-thinning sequence that enables back-illuminated image sensors and stacked/3D devices. Representative claim 5 (depending from claim 1) recites silicon / silicon dioxide / single-crystal silicon as the etchable, etch-stop and wafer layers. (Fed. Cir. slip op., Nos. 2017-1554, -1556, -1557, Apr. 2, 2018)

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. The district case sat in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne handling pretrial matters by referral order dated March 9, 2015. Venue choice tracked the standard plaintiff playbook of the era: Marshall/Gilstrap was

I'll research this. Note upfront: the case metadata describes a PTAB inter partes review (IPR2016-00962), not a district court infringement suit — so I'll need to verify whether there was a parallel district court action and map the chronology accordingly. Let me search.

Now I have the core picture: the PTAB case sits inside a parallel E.D. Tex. infringement action (2:15-cv-00341). Let me dig into the district court docket, the stay/transfer motions, and the appeal.

Let me pull the district court docket chronology and the Federal Circuit appeal details.

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioners (Samsung entities) in this IPR proceeding. Note that this is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court infringement case — so "plaintiff" here maps to the petitioner.

Important framing caveat

This is not a district court infringement case. IPR2016-00962 is an inter partes review at the PTAB, so the party labels are Petitioner (Samsung entities) vs. Patent Owner (Raytheon). The "plaintiff" role in your question maps onto the Petitioner: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. There is no PACER district-court docket, no complaint, and no "local counsel" in the district-court sense — PTAB counsel lists appear in the Petition, Mandatory Notices, and Powers of Attorney.

Counsel of record for the Petitioner (Samsung)

Source for the counsel-of-record identification: GreyB/IPVerse case page for IPR2016-00962, which lists Petitioner Counsel: Heath Briggs and Respondent Counsel: Thomas Filarski (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2016-00962). Briggs's professional profile (Greenberg Traurig, Denver; https://www.gtlaw.com/en/professionals/b/briggs-heath-j) corroborates his Samsung IPR practice.

What I could not verify — and why I'm flagging it rather than guessing

• Backup counsel / additional petitioner attorneys: PTAB petitions normally name multiple practitioners (lead + back-up). The GreyB/IPVerse aggregation surfaced only one petitioner name. I could not retrieve the actual IPR2016-00962 Petition, Mandatory Notices, or Power of Attorney from the docket, so any additional Faegre/Samsung petitioner counsel are unconfirmed — I will not name them from memory.
• His firm of record in 2016: Public profiles describe Briggs's current firm (Greenberg Traurig, Denver). I could not confirm from the retrieved material which firm held the IPR engagement in April 2016; treat that detail as unconfirmed.
• PTAB filings are public (this is not a sealed matter), so the gap here is my retrieval limits, not sealing.

Related context worth noting

• The Board's Final Written Decision of Nov. 30, 2016 in the joined lead proceeding IPR2016-00209 expressly notes that IPR2016-00962 "has been joined with the instant proceeding," and that the Samsung petition was instituted and joined (Paper 45; Docket Alarm copy at docketalarm.com). Joinder was granted by Paper 12 (Aug. 24, 2016).
• The Federal Circuit appeal was captioned Raytheon Co. v. Sony Corp., No. 2017-1554 (nonprecedential, decided Apr. 2, 2018), where Sony, Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Electronics America, and Samsung Semiconductor appeared collectively as appellees; the court affirmed the obviousness holdings. Counsel names on the appellees' briefs were not captured in the material I retrieved.
• For completeness on the opposing side, the patent owner (Raytheon) was represented by Thomas Filarski (per GreyB/IPVerse); his firm of record is likewise unconfirmed here.

Bottom line: the only petitioner-side attorney I can source with confidence is Heath J. Briggs, listed as Petitioner counsel of record in IPR2016-00962. Additional counsel names exist on the underlying papers but I could not verify them from primary sources within this session — so I'm not listing them. If you want, I can attempt a targeted pull of the IPR2016-00962 Petition/Mandatory Notice and the 2017-1554 briefs to complete the roster.

I'll research Raytheon's counsel — the "defendant" role here maps onto the Patent Owner in this IPR (and on the district-court side, Samsung was the defendant). Let me search both tracks.

Confirmed the Patent Owner side in the joined proceeding. Now let me pin down Filarski's firm and any co-counsel, plus the Raytheon-side counsel on the Federal Circuit appeal.

Filarski is confirmed as Respondent/Patent Owner counsel. Now I need to nail his firm as of 2016, plus the appeal-side and district-court defense teams.

Framing: which "defendant"?

Two different party alignments exist in this matter, and they point in opposite directions, so I'll answer both explicitly rather than pick one silently:

• In IPR2016-00962 itself, the parties are Petitioner (Samsung) vs. Patent Owner (Raytheon). The prior section mapped "plaintiff" → Petitioner, so the complementary "defendant" role maps to Raytheon as Respondent/Patent Owner. That is my primary table below.
• In the parallel infringement suit that generated this IPR — Raytheon Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:15-cv-00341 (E.D. Tex.) — Raytheon was the plaintiff and the Samsung entities were the defendants. If you meant the literal infringement defendants, that is the secondary table.

⚠️ Flag on the case metadata: the prompt lists Samsung as "Plaintiff(s)" and Raytheon as "Defendant(s)." That is correct only in the PTAB petitioner/patent-owner sense; in the underlying district court case the roles are reversed. I have not altered the metadata, but the labels should not be read as district-court roles.

---

A. Raytheon's counsel — Respondent / Patent Owner in IPR2016-00962 (primary answer)

Sources: GreyB/IPVerse docket summaries list "Respondent Counsel: Thomas Filarski" for both IPR2016-00962 (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2016-00962) and IPR2016-00209 (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2016-00209); Brinks-era firm and address from the N.D. Cal. caption in Edwards Lifesciences v. Cook (https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2003cv03817/[14424/789](https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/search/patent/reelFrameDetail?reelFrame=14424-0789)/0.pdf) and Brinks press releases (https://www.lawfuel.com/brinks-hofer-gilson-lione-announces-new-board-of-directors-for-2008/); credentials from the DePaul Dialogue profile (https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=dialogue) and 2009-1264 opinion (http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/09-1264.pdf); post-Brinks move to Steptoe documented in the 2019 Best Lawyers listing and a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire (https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/hall_sjq1.pdf); current affiliation per https://addyhart.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Tom-Filarski-1.pdf.

Raytheon's other trial-team attorneys of record in the underlying E.D. Tex. action (2:15-cv-00341)

Docket attorney listings for the district case show the following appearing for Raytheon (as plaintiff there), in addition to Filarski:

Source: UniCourt docket summary for Raytheon Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:15-cv-00341 (https://unicourt.com/case/rc-db1-raytheon-company-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd-et-al-[760856](/patent/760856)).

I am deliberately not assigning firms to Fahrenbach, Davis, Stringfield, Schlitter, or Folsom. The docket aggregator gives names without reliable firm strings, and guessing would risk misattributing counsel. Given that Raytheon's PTAB defense and its district-court prosecution of the '678 patent ran in parallel, it is plausible several of these were Brinks attorneys alongside Filarski — but that is an inference, not a sourced fact.

---

B. If you meant the infringement defendants (Samsung) in E.D. Tex.

Sources: UniCourt docket attorney list for 2:15-cv-00341 (link above); Fish & Richardson appearances for Samsung and Gillam & Smith local-counsel designations in E.D. Tex. Samsung matters (e.g., https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.[220857](/patent/220857)/gov.uscourts.txed.220857.333.3.pdf and https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.220857/gov.uscourts.txed.220857.135.0.pdf); parallel Sony/Apple/OmniVision docket (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2015cv00342/[157969](/patent/157969)).

Caveat on Table B: the Fish & Richardson/Gillam & Smith designations are documented for Samsung in later E.D. Tex. matters (2023–2024 filings) and the firm structure is corroborated by the 2015 docket listing only through Melissa Richards Smith. I could not retrieve the actual 2015 pro hac vice appearance orders in 2:15-cv-00341, so the specific 2015 lead/backup roster is inferred, not confirmed.

---

What I could not verify (stated rather than guessed)

1. Back-up PTAB counsel for Raytheon in IPR2016-00962. Petitions and patent-owner responses normally name lead plus back-up practitioners under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3). The IPVerse aggregation surfaced only Filarski for Raytheon. I could not pull Raytheon's Mandatory Notices or Power of Attorney from the IPR2016-00962 docket, so additional Brinks/Steptoe PTAB attorneys are unconfirmed and I name none.
2. Filarski's firm of record in 2016 specifically. He spent "more than two decades" at Brinks and was at Steptoe by 2019, so Brinks is the strong inference for the April–November 2016 window — but I did not retrieve the IPR caption page that would settle it. Treat the Brinks attribution for the 2016 filings as high-confidence but not primary-source confirmed.
3. *Raytheon's Federal Circuit counsel in Raytheon Co. v. Sony Corp., No. 2017-1554* (nonprecedential, Apr. 2, 2018, aff'g the Board's obviousness holdings). The opinion and judgment (https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/17-1554/17-1554-2018-04-02.pdf; https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[4482890](/patent/4482890)/raytheon-company-v-sony-corporation/) do not carry the counsel block in the sources retrieved, and I did not obtain the briefs. Raytheon's appellate roster is therefore unknown here.
4. Any in-house Raytheon counsel. Raytheon IP legal department attorneys do not appear in the retrieved PTAB or district docket extracts; nothing to report.

If you want the gaps closed, the two highest-yield pulls are (a) Raytheon's Mandatory Notice / Power of Attorney in IPR201