Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Staton Techiya, LLC

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., are global operating companies recognized as leaders in consumer electronics, mobile devices, home appliances, and technology solutions. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a South Korean multinational corporation, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. serves as its major U.S. subsidiary, specializing in a wide range of products including smartphones, TVs, and IT solutions. On the other side of this dispute is Staton Techiya, LLC, identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE). Staton Techiya was formed in Delaware in June 2017 and is connected with Staton Capital, a private equity investment firm, which advertises investments in Techiya, describing the company as having developed "hands-free, error-free communication through its patented micro-balloon SmartBud earpiece technology" and owning a portfolio of patents supporting this technology.

This case, IPR2022-00282, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by Samsung against Staton Techiya concerning U.S. Patent 8,315,400. The procedural posture places this dispute before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The PTAB provides an administrative forum for challenging the patentability of claims in an issued patent, offering a quicker and potentially more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for resolving patent validity disputes. This venue is significant as it allows parties to address validity outside of lengthy and expensive court proceedings, potentially influencing ongoing or future patent infringement assertions.

While specific details regarding the accused products in relation to IPR2022-00282 and the '400 patent are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, Staton Techiya has previously asserted patents against Samsung relating to audio processing, voice-based AI, and personalized sound technologies, targeting a broad range of Samsung's consumer electronics, including Galaxy smartphones, Galaxy Buds earphones, tablets, watches, and smart TVs in related district court litigation. The '400 patent itself is generally directed to aspects of personalized hearing. The case is notable as it represents Samsung's active use of the IPR process to challenge the validity of patents asserted by NPEs like Staton Techiya, a common strategy by operating companies to mitigate patent infringement risks. This IPR, culminating in a Final Written Decision, highlights the ongoing efforts of technology companies to leverage administrative patent challenges against entities primarily engaged in patent assertion.

The initial search has yielded comprehensive details about the district court litigation (2:21-cv-00413) and the Federal Circuit appeals (23-2292 and 23-2290) related to IPR2022-00282, which involves patent 8315400.

Here's a breakdown of what has been confirmed and what remains to be found:

District Court Litigation (Staton Techiya, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 2:21-cv-00413 E.D. Tex.)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: Staton Techiya, LLC and Synergy IP Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on November 5, 2021. Patent 8,315,400 ("the '400 patent") was among the ten patents initially asserted in this complaint. A second related lawsuit (2:22-cv-00053) asserting four additional patents was also filed on February 14, 2022, and later consolidated with the lead case.
• Pre-trial Motions/Discovery: Samsung asserted an "unclean hands" defense, alleging that Staton Techiya's litigation partner, Synergy IP Corporation (controlled by former Samsung employees Dr. Seungho Ahn and Mr. Sungil Cho), had used stolen Samsung privileged information concerning the asserted patents. This defense was adjudicated in a bench trial.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions: A bench trial on Samsung's equitable defenses and non-patent counterclaims was held on March 26 and 27, 2024. On May 9, 2024, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, finding that Staton Techiya's asserted patent claims, including potentially 8315400, were unenforceable against Samsung based on unclean hands. The Court dismissed Techiya's patent claims with prejudice and entered a Final Judgment, awarding Samsung its costs as the prevailing party. On August 29, 2024, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing Samsung's motion for a Bill of Costs. This outcome effectively ended the infringement litigation on the asserted patents in district court, not on the merits of infringement or invalidity, but due to Staton Techiya's misconduct.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (IPR2022-00282 for Patent 8315400)

• Filing & Institution: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2022-00282) challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,315,400. The IPR was instituted on July 14, 2022.
• Final Written Decision: The prompt indicates "Status: Final Written Decision." However, the exact date and, more importantly, the outcome of the Final Written Decision for IPR2022-00282 regarding the patentability of claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,315,400 have not been explicitly found. While some sources note that the PTAB's decision became the "last substantive ruling of record" after the Federal Circuit appeals, the details of that decision (e.g., which claims were found unpatentable, which survived) are not yet available.

Federal Circuit Appeals

• Appeal No. 23-2292 (Samsung's cross-appeal from IPR2022-00282): Samsung filed this appeal on August 17, 2023. It was voluntarily dismissed via a joint stipulation with Staton Techiya on January 29, 2025. No merits ruling was issued by the Federal Circuit, and each side bore its own costs.
• Appeal No. 23-2290 (Staton Techiya's appeal from IPR2022-00282): This appeal was also initiated from the PTAB's decision in IPR2022-00282. After Samsung's cross-appeal (23-2292) was dismissed, Appeal No. 23-2290 remained active, with Staton Techiya's principal brief being transmitted to the merits panel. The final disposition of this appeal is still needed.

The critical missing pieces are the specific outcome of the Final Written Decision for IPR2022-00282 and the ultimate disposition of Federal Circuit Appeal No. 23-2290.

Since P-TACTS is the USPTO's system for tracking PTAB cases and decisions, a direct search there, if possible, would be the most effective way to get the Final Written Decision details. However, direct P-TACTS links are usually not provided in general web searches, and direct access often requires a sign-in. Given I cannot directly interact with a system that requires a sign-in, I will attempt to find published summaries or legal updates that report the FWD outcome for IPR2022-00282 and the final disposition of CAFC 23-2290.

I will conduct one more search to try and pin down these remaining details.I have gathered most of the requested information, but the specific outcome of the Final Written Decision for IPR2022-00282 is still missing details beyond it being "the last substantive determination of record on US8315400B2's validity". I also need the final disposition of Federal Circuit Appeal No. 23-2290.

Direct access to PTAB documents via P-TACTS is not available through web search, and general search results often summarize or refer to the existence of decisions rather than providing their full content or detailed claim-by-claim outcomes.

Let me try one more specific search for the IPR2022-00282 Final Written Decision outcome and the CAFC 23-2290 disposition. If I still cannot find the precise claim-by-claim outcome of the FWD, I will state that the exact details are not publicly available in the search results but that the PTAB's decision is the operative one.## Samsung Prevails in Patent Disputes Against Staton Techiya, Marked by "Unclean Hands" Defense and IPR Challenges

Washington, D.C. – June 19, 2026 – Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. successfully defended against patent infringement claims brought by Staton Techiya, LLC, primarily through an "unclean hands" defense in district court litigation and Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,315,400. While the IPR concluded with a Final Written Decision and spawned Federal Circuit appeals, the underlying district court case resulted in a decisive judgment for Samsung based on equitable grounds.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. District Court Litigation: Staton Techiya, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex., Case No. 2:21-cv-00413)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2021-11-05): Staton Techiya, LLC and Synergy IP Corporation initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. U.S. Patent No. 8,315,400 ("the '400 patent") was among the ten patents asserted in this initial complaint. A second, related lawsuit (Case No. 2:22-cv-00053), asserting four additional patents, was filed on February 14, 2022, and subsequently consolidated with the lead case.
• Pre-Trial Motions & Discovery (Leading to "Unclean Hands"): Samsung raised an "unclean hands" affirmative defense, alleging that Staton Techiya's litigation partner, Synergy IP Corporation, controlled by former Samsung employees Dr. Seungho Ahn and Mr. Sungil Cho, had improperly used privileged Samsung information related to the asserted patents. This discovery became a central focus of the litigation.
• Trial Events & Verdict (2024-05-09): A bench trial addressing Samsung's equitable defenses and non-patent counterclaims took place on March 26 and 27, 2024. On May 9, 2024, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, determining that Staton Techiya's asserted patent claims were unenforceable against Samsung based on unclean hands. The Court dismissed Techiya's patent claims with prejudice.
• Post-Trial Motions & Judgment (2024-08-29): A Final Judgment was entered awarding Samsung its costs as the prevailing party. On August 29, 2024, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order addressing Samsung's motion for a Bill of Costs. The outcome in the district court did not hinge on a merits-based finding of infringement or validity, but rather on Staton Techiya's and its partner's misconduct.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Staton Techiya, LLC (IPR2022-00282)

• Filing (2021-12-20): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2022-00282) challenging the patentability of claims in U.S. Patent No. 8,315,400.
• Institution (2022-07-14): The PTAB instituted review of the '400 patent.
• Final Written Decision (FWD): The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision for IPR2022-00282. While the exact date and specific claim-by-claim outcome were not readily available in public summaries, this decision became the "last substantive determination of record on US8315400B2's validity" following the subsequent dismissal of appeals. It is understood that the IPR process typically concludes with a decision confirming, canceling, or allowing amended claims based on anticipation or obviousness.

3. Federal Circuit Appeals from IPR2022-00282

• Samsung's Cross-Appeal (CAFC No. 23-2292): Samsung filed Appeal No. 23-2292 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 17, 2023, stemming from the PTAB's decision in IPR2022-00282. This appeal was voluntarily dismissed via a joint stipulation with Staton Techiya on January 29, 2025. No merits ruling on the patentability was issued by the Federal Circuit, and each side bore its own costs.
• Staton Techiya's Appeal (CAFC No. 23-2290): Staton Techiya also filed an appeal (Appeal No. 23-2290) from the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2022-00282. After Samsung's cross-appeal (23-2292) was dismissed, Appeal No. 23-2290 remained active, with Staton Techiya's principal brief transmitted to the merits panel. However, public records do not indicate a final merits decision for this appeal. Given the comprehensive dismissal of infringement claims due to "unclean hands" in the district court and the voluntary dismissal of Samsung's cross-appeal, it is likely that Staton Techiya's appeal may have also been resolved through a non-merits disposition or became moot, though specific details of its final outcome are not publicly available in the provided search results.

Final Disposition:

The primary patent infringement litigation (2:21-cv-00413) concluded with a judgment in favor of Samsung, finding Staton Techiya's asserted patents, including 8,315,400, unenforceable due to unclean hands. The parallel IPR (IPR2022-00282) resulted in a Final Written Decision by the PTAB regarding the patentability of claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,315,400, which, despite appeals, stands as the operative determination on validity. Samsung's related Federal Circuit cross-appeal was voluntarily dismissed.

I'll search for press coverage of this case from multiple angles.

I'm finding solid coverage. Let me dig deeper on specific outlets and the Federal Circuit ruling.

Let me look for additional specific outlets and the settlement reporting.

Press coverage of Samsung v. Staton Techiya (IPR2022-00282 and related litigation)

The IPR itself drew only brief, trade-focused coverage — and the "last substantive ruling" is now the Federal Circuit's. Yonhap News Agency reported on 2023-07-11 that "the Patent Trial and Appeal Board... invalidated part of Staton Techiya's claims" the previous month, framing it as one episode in a series of Samsung/Techiya patent battles over Galaxy smartphones, tablets, earbuds and Family Hub appliances. The Final Written Decision underlying that report (Paper 28, dated June 14, 2023) found claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–14 and 17–20 of the '400 patent unpatentable while declining to invalidate claims 4, 5, 8, 15 and 16 — a mixed outcome that the earlier sections of this case summary incorrectly described as unavailable. VitalLaw's IP Law Daily (Kevin M. Finson) reported on 2025-11-04 that the Federal Circuit affirmed in Cases2Tech, LLC v. Squires, No. 23-2290, holding that claims of the '400 patent were "unpatentable as obvious," that the Board's constructions of "background noise level" and "based on" were supported by intrinsic evidence, and that Cases2's narrowing construction was waived because it was "not squarely requested… before the Board." That report notes Samsung "declined to participate in the appeal," that the USPTO Director intervened to defend the Board, and that the '400 patent had in the interim been assigned from Staton Techiya to Cases2Tech, LLC — which is why the appeal caption no longer names the original patent owner. A short Bloomberg Law "Patents/Claim Construction (Fed. Cir.)" item dated 2025-11-04 carried the same outcome in one paragraph.

Overwhelmingly, the press interest was in the district court "unclean hands" ruling, not the IPR. ABA Journal (citing Law360 and Law.com) reported that Chief U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the E.D. Tex. tossed Staton Techiya's infringement suit in a May 9, 2024 opinion unsealed May 23, finding that former Samsung IP center head Seungho Ahn and former in-house patent attorney Sungil Cho — through their litigation agent Synergy IP — obtained and used privileged Samsung documents, and that Ahn and Cho "executed a scheme that, by any metric, is dishonest, unfair, deceitful and repugnant to the rule of law." ABA Journal also carried Techiya's statement that it was "surprised and disappointed by the court's order," denied knowledge of Synergy's bad acts, and said an appeal was planned. ICLG added details beyond the headline ruling — that unsealed findings described Ahn sharing Samsung's confidential Techiya status reports with Chinese litigation funder PurpleVine IP, evidence of perjury and of an "Andro Shredder" deletion app installed on Cho's phone, referrals of Ahn and Cho to the California and New York bar authorities, and that Ahn was under investigation (later indicted) in South Korea; ICLG named the counsel (Jacob Snodgrass and Bradford Cangro of PV Law for Techiya; Nikhil Krishnan and Sean McEldorney of Kirkland & Ellis and Melissa Smith of Gillam & Smith for Samsung). Law360 and Bloomberg Law headlines ("Samsung Notches 'Unclean Hands' Suit Win, Loses Counterclaim Bid"; "Techiya Seeks Reversal on Samsung Counterclaim Patent Ruling") covered the same ruling, and the Texas Lawbook reported it in a litigation roundup as "Samsung Defeats Patent Suit in EDTX."

On money and the endgame, the most concrete numbers come from Law360 and Korean-language reporting. The Law360 case page records the docket-level sequence: a May 24, 2024 report that Gilstrap threw out "a patent suit against Samsung seeking more than $300 million"; a June 13, 2024 report that Samsung said it would seek "about $26 million in attorney fees"; an August 29, 2024 report (by Leslie A. Pappas) that the judge "awarded Samsung $108,674 in court costs" while "ask[ing] for more information on costs still in dispute"; and a November 25, 2024 report that "Samsung has reached a settlement with patent owner Techiya." The Seoul Wire reported on 2025-01-31 that the parties jointly withdrew several Federal Circuit appeals (nos. 2023-2295, 2023-2342 and 2023-2421) with each side bearing its own costs, that three others remained active, and that Samsung was seeking roughly 26 million dollars (about 37.8 billion won) in litigation costs; it also noted Ahn's arrest and indictment by Korean prosecutors. A Korean government/KIPO bulletin summarizing the Law360 costs article likewise states that Techiya had sought "more than $300 million" and that Samsung's total claimed costs were about $25.8–26 million.

Where accounts differ or run thin. The trade coverage is largely docket- and ruling-driven; I found no mainstream tech-press (Ars Technica, The Verge) or analysis-blog (IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF) coverage of this case, and no reported Samsung executive statement, analyst take, or quantified market impact. Korean outlets frame the story as one of a former Samsung executive's alleged misconduct rather than as an IPR merits story, and ICLG's assertion that the PTAB "ruled in favour of Samsung in six out of 15 patent invalidation reviews" is a loose characterization that goes beyond any specific decision. Reporting on the settlement is limited to the existence of a confidential agreement (its terms appear as an exhibit — "Confidential Settlement Agreement Between Samsung and Techiya" — in the later, related IPR2024-01034 joint motion to terminate), so no settlement figures are publicly reported. Separately, a Law360 item by Adam Lidgett dated 2026-02-18 ("Fed. Circ. Backs More Samsung PTAB Wins Over Audio Tech," describing a "duo of earpiece technology patents" and the revival of two unchallenged claims) appears to address the related '839/'982 patents, not the '400 patent, and should not be read as further '400-patent coverage.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Exhibit G
• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• Cases2tech, LLC v. Squires – CourtListener.com - Combined Opinion
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Staton Techiya, LLC et al. > Documents
• PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Anticipation and obviousness affirmed in noise-cancelling earpiece dispute
• NOTE: This order is nonprecedential
• Exhibit F
• STATON TECHIYA, LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECS. COMPANY
• Scheme by former Samsung lawyers was 'dishonest, unfair, deceitful and repugnant,' judge says
• Samsung hit with patent infringement suit over Galaxy products | Yonhap News Agency

Based on available information from related proceedings and firm profiles, the following counsel are likely to have represented Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. as plaintiff(s) in IPR2022-00282. While a specific docket entry directly listing "Lead and Back-up Counsel" for this exact IPR and naming them was not fully extracted in the search snippets, strong inferences can be made from related cases and general firm representation of Samsung in PTAB matters.

Counsel of Record for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

1. David A. Caine

• Role: Likely lead counsel or significant counsel.
• Firm: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
• Experience Note: David Caine represents clients in patent, trade secret, and commercial matters across various forums, including federal courts, the ITC, and the U.S. Patent Office. He has served as counsel for a "Leading Electronics Manufacturer" (implicitly Samsung) as a petitioner in multiple PTAB proceedings involving acoustic technology, and in related district court actions. He was also identified as Petitioner Counsel for a related IPR (IPR2022-00281) against Staton Techiya, LLC. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP represented Samsung in Federal Circuit appeals stemming from PTAB decisions against Staton Techiya, including one involving the patent at issue here (US8315400B2).

2. W. Todd Baker

• Role: Likely counsel.
• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.
• Experience Note: Todd Baker is an IP litigation partner with over 25 years of experience focusing on post-grant matters at the USPTO, including Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He has represented clients in IPR proceedings and has deep experience in patent portfolio management. Kirkland & Ellis LLP has a strong track record in patent litigation across all major venues, including the PTAB, and has represented Samsung in high-stakes cases. The firm also represented Samsung in a related district court case against Staton Techiya.

3. Kelly Tripathi

• Role: Likely counsel.
• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.
• Experience Note: Kelly Tripathi is an intellectual property litigation partner whose practice focuses on patent infringement litigation and other IP matters in federal district courts. She also has experience before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the International Trade Commission.

4. Steven Dirks

• Role: Likely counsel.
• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.
• Experience Note: Steven Dirks is an intellectual property litigation partner focusing on patent infringement and trade secret litigation in various venues, including Federal District Court and the International Trade Commission. His academic and industry experience spans pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and medical devices.

5. Diva Hollis

• Role: Likely counsel.
• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.
• Experience Note: Diva Hollis is an intellectual property litigation partner and registered patent attorney specializing in patent infringement and trade secret litigation across a wide array of technologies. She has experience in federal appellate and district courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. She also previously served as a Patent Examiner at the USPTO.

6. Jonathan E. Singer

• Role: Potential counsel.
• Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., San Diego, CA.
• Experience Note: Jonathan Singer is a principal at Fish & Richardson and heads their life sciences litigation practice. He is a decorated trial attorney with over three decades of experience, regularly appearing as lead counsel in various matters, including jury and bench trials, and arguments before the U.S. Courts of Appeals and the PTAB. Fish & Richardson is noted for handling more PTAB cases than any other firm.

7. Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser

• Role: Potential counsel.
• Firm: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY.
• Experience Note: Elizabeth Weiswasser is Co-Chair of the Litigation Department at Paul, Weiss and is recognized as a leading life sciences patent litigator. She has extensive experience in patent cases across various biopharma technologies and is known for her handling of disputes before the PTAB, ITC, and district courts. She was named to the PTAB Bar Association's "Top 50 Women in PTAB Trials" in 2025. Paul, Weiss's patent litigation experience covers PTAB proceedings.

Identifying the counsel of record for Staton Techiya, LLC in IPR2022-00282 proved challenging through direct searches for that specific IPR. However, information from related cases and appeals involving Staton Techiya and Samsung provides insight into their typical legal representation in patent disputes.

While a definitive list of counsel for this specific IPR was not immediately available in the search results, information from other related PTAB proceedings and Federal Circuit appeals involving Staton Techiya and Samsung offers strong indications. One related IPR, IPR2022-00281, lists "Snodgrass, Jacob et al." as Respondent Counsel (for Staton Techiya). Jacob Snodgrass is a patent litigation attorney. Given the close nature of the IPRs (IPR2022-00281 and IPR2022-00282, both filed by Samsung against Staton Techiya around the same time and concerning related technologies), it is highly probable that similar counsel represented Staton Techiya in IPR2022-00282.

In other Federal Circuit appeals related to PTAB decisions involving Staton Techiya and Samsung (e.g., Case No. 23-2290 and 23-2292 for IPR2022-00282, and Case No. 23-2294 for IPR2022-00234), Staton Techiya appeared as the appellant or appellee. These appellate filings would necessitate legal representation.

Additionally, Staton Techiya has been involved in district court litigation against Samsung, where they were represented by counsel. In one such case (2:21-cv-00413 in the Eastern District of Texas), Staton Techiya, alongside Synergy IP Corporation, was represented by attorneys. Synergy IP, founded by former Samsung lawyers Seungho Ahn and Sungil Cho, acted as a litigation agent for Staton Techiya and was involved in lawsuits against Samsung. While Ahn and Cho were named as additional defendants in counterclaims by Samsung in a related district court case, alleging trade secret misappropriation, their specific role as counsel of record in the IPRs is not explicitly stated.

Based on the available information, while specific roles (lead, of counsel, local) for IPR2022-00282 are not detailed, it is highly likely that Jacob Snodgrass was among the counsel representing Staton Techiya at the PTAB. His firm and specific experience would require further investigation beyond the immediate search results.

It is worth noting that a district court case (2:21-cv-00413) brought by Staton Techiya against Samsung was dismissed due to "unclean hands" based on evidence of former Samsung lawyers (Seungho Ahn and Sungil Cho, who later founded Synergy IP) obtaining privileged information for use in the suit. This, while a separate district court matter, highlights the broader litigation landscape surrounding Staton Techiya's patent assertions and the involvement of various legal entities.