Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. CM HK Limited

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung), a global technology leader known for its vast portfolio of consumer electronics, mobile devices, and semiconductors, is the petitioner in this Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. The respondent and patent owner, CM HK Limited, appears to be an entity asserting U.S. Patent No. 10,852,846 against Samsung. While there is a well-known operating company, China Mobile Hong Kong Company Limited ("CMHK"), which is a mobile network operator and a subsidiary of China Mobile Limited, the available information suggests that CM HK Limited in this patent litigation context may be a different entity or a vehicle for patent assertion, as it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00880). The specific product, service, or technology accused of infringement by CM HK Limited is not detailed in the provided search results but is the underlying basis for Samsung's challenge to the patent's validity.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 10,852,846, is currently under review for its validity by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO. While a detailed technical sketch of this specific patent is not explicitly provided in the search results, related IPR proceedings involving Samsung as a petitioner have challenged patents in the realm of wireless communication technologies, such as enhanced distributed channel access, device coexistence, and multi-user uplink transmission. The procedural posture of this case is an IPR, IPR2025-01023, which has been instituted by the PTAB, meaning the Board has determined there is a reasonable likelihood that Samsung would prevail on at least one challenged claim. The PTAB is a specialized administrative court within the USPTO that handles challenges to patent validity, often operating as a quicker and less expensive alternative to district court litigation. The Director of the USPTO has recently centralized authority over institution decisions, including discretionary denials, which now weigh heavily on factors like parallel district court proceedings and the timing of trial dates.

This case is notable due to its IPR linkage with potential parallel district court litigation initiated by CM HK Limited against Samsung. Samsung frequently utilizes IPRs as a key part of its patent strategy, proactively challenging the validity of competitor and Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) patents. The interplay between the PTAB's IPR process and any co-pending district court infringement suit highlights the ongoing strategic considerations for both patent owners and challengers in managing patent disputes. The outcome of this IPR could significantly impact the broader patent litigation landscape between these parties, potentially invalidating CM HK Limited's patent and influencing any associated infringement claims.

This case involves both district court litigation and a parallel IPR proceeding.

District Court Litigation (CM HK Limited v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:24-cv-00880)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2024-10-31: CM HK Limited filed a complaint for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, accusing Samsung of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 10,852,846 and 11,698,687.
  • 2025-01-28: CM HK filed an amended complaint for patent infringement.
  • 2025-01-28: CM HK served its infringement contentions.
  • 2025-03-04: Samsung served its invalidity contentions.

• Pre-trial motions of substance:

  • 2025-01-28: CM HK filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
  • 2025-05-15: The Court granted CM HK's motion to dismiss, finding Samsung failed to establish that CM HK is subject to the court's specific jurisdiction. However, the Court allowed Samsung to seek jurisdictional discovery.
  • 2025-06-10: At the parties' request, the court vacated all deadlines from the Scheduling Order, pending jurisdictional discovery.
  • 2025-08-13: CM HK filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against Samsung in a related case in the Northern District of California (4:24-cv-06567), alleging procedural gamesmanship, legally deficient alter ego allegations, and strategic intent to delay adjudication.
  • The court denied CM HK's motion for sanctions, finding Samsung's alter ego theory credible enough to warrant jurisdictional discovery.

• Claim Construction (Markman) outcomes:

  • 2025-03-28: The parties exchanged proposed terms for construction under Patent L.R. 4-1.
  • 2025-05-13: The parties filed their Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.
  • A claim construction hearing has not yet been set as of the denial of CM HK's motion for sanctions.

• Discovery milestones:

  • 2025-08-12: Samsung vigorously pursued jurisdictional discovery, including filing a motion to compel.
  • In a related Northern District of California case (4:24-cv-06567), the court partially granted and partially denied CM HK's discovery letter regarding interrogatories and a 30(b)(6) deposition notice served on Samsung. The court denied CM HK's request to compel Samsung to identify corporate witnesses and provide deposition dates but granted CM HK's request to have Samsung verify interrogatory responses already provided.

• Final disposition or present posture:

  • 2025-08-20: The Texas litigation was stayed pending the outcome of a related California litigation.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (IPR2025-01023)

• Filing and Institution:

  • Samsung filed IPR2025-01023 challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,852,846 in June 2025.
  • The PTAB instituted a trial in this IPR proceeding. The precise institution date is not readily available in the provided snippets, but the case is currently listed as "Pending - Instituted."
  • 2026-04-06: The Patent Owner, CM HK Limited, filed its response to the petition.

• Effect of PTAB proceedings on district court litigation:

  • The district court litigation in the Eastern District of Texas was stayed pending the outcome of a related California litigation, which itself involved jurisdictional discovery and motions for sanctions related to the patents at issue, including 10,852,846.
  • The institution of the IPR by the PTAB could lead to a further stay of the district court litigation if it wasn't already stayed, or impact any existing stay.
  • 2025-10-17: USPTO Director John Squires reclaimed personal authority over all IPR and PGR institution decisions, effective October 20, 2025. This change emphasizes centralized control over institution decisions, with routine decisions issued as summary notices and detailed reasoning reserved for novel or important issues. This shift in policy might affect how future IPRs are handled or reviewed, but IPR2025-01023 was already instituted.

In IPR2025-01023, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is represented by in-house counsel and outside law firms.

In-House Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.:

• Naveen Modi (Counsel Name)
  • Role: Likely in-house counsel, given the context of "Counsel Name" listed for the petitioner on a PTAB trial document.
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Note: While specific experience for Naveen Modi isn't detailed in the immediate search results for this case, other Samsung in-house counsel like Matthew Bathon, Tim Jezek, and Phillip Lee manage patent litigation dockets, coordinate with outside counsel, and have extensive experience in ITC, district court, and PTAB proceedings across various technologies. Samsung frequently uses its in-house IP team for strategic oversight of patent disputes.

Samsung also utilizes various other in-house legal professionals for its extensive patent litigation, including:

• Matthew Bathon
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics
  • Note: Coordinates Samsung's ITC and district court dockets, with prior experience as a partner at Steptoe LLP, focusing on Section 337 investigations before the ITC and IP disputes in district courts.
• Tim Jezek
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics America
  • Note: Focuses on IP litigation and related policy issues, with over two decades of litigation and intellectual property counseling experience in both in-house and law firm settings. He has participated in PTAB Masters events.
• Phillip Lee
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics US IP Center
  • Note: Veteran litigator with substantial experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing, appearing before federal district courts, the PTAB, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit. He manages patent case dockets with outside counsel, negotiates settlements, and advises on IP issues.
• Ken Korea
  • Role: Previously Senior Vice President in charge of the Silicon Valley IP Office for Samsung Electronics
  • Firm: Colev Law (current firm)
  • Note: While not currently in-house counsel, his prior role at Samsung involved building and leading a team handling patent litigation, licensing, acquisition, and policy matters, and he has extensive experience in patent licensing and litigation.

Outside Counsel:

The specific outside counsel firm representing Samsung in this particular IPR (IPR2025-01023) is not explicitly named in the provided PTAB document snippet, which only lists "Modi, Naveenet al" as counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.. However, in a related patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas (CM HK Limited v. Samsung Electronics Co LTD et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-00880), Samsung is represented by:

• Elizabeth Louise Brann
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Paul Hastings, LLP
• Robert R Laurenzi
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Paul Hastings Llp - New York
• Ariell Bratton
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Paul Hastings, LLP
• Sasha Vujcic
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP

It is common for Samsung to work with prominent IP litigation firms like Paul Hastings, LLP, for its patent disputes. While these specific attorneys are listed for the district court case, it's highly probable that attorneys from Paul Hastings or another major IP firm are also actively involved in the related IPR proceeding, working in conjunction with Samsung's in-house team. Without direct PTAB docket entries detailing outside counsel for IPR2025-01023 beyond the "Counsel Name" field, a definitive list of outside counsel for this specific IPR cannot be provided at this time.

I'll research counsel of record for CM HK Limited (the defendant/patent owner) in both the IPR and the parallel district court case.

Good initial results. Let me dig deeper on the IPR counsel and the district court teams.

Counsel of Record for CM HK Limited (Defendant / Patent Owner)

Important framing note: The case metadata lists CM HK Limited as the "Defendant," but this is only true for the PTAB sense of the word (CM HK is the Patent Owner/Respondent in IPR2025-01023). In the underlying district court action that spawned this IPR — CM HK Limited v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., E.D. Tex. No. 2:24-cv-00880 — CM HK is the plaintiff, and Samsung is the defendant. I address both sets of CM HK counsel below, flagging the role for each. (Samsung's side was covered in the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section and is not repeated here.)

---

A. IPR2025-01023 — Counsel for Patent Owner CM HK Limited

Source: Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 (PTAB), and PTAB correspondence.

Notes / caveats:

• The PTAB's public "counsels involved" listing (IPVerse) for IPR2025-01023 shows Respondent Counsel: "Turner, Ginger et al." — i.e., Turner plus additional counsel consistent with the mandatory notice (Evans).
• The same two attorneys appear as CM HK's PTAB team in the parallel IPR2025-01071, which the Board's Trials unit handled together with IPR2025-01023 (its pro hac vice notice deadline was Aug. 15, 2025).
• Patent Owner has been an active participant post-institution: a PTAB email dated Jan. 26, 2026 shows CM HK (via "Chris Evans, Counsel for Patent Owner CM HK Ltd.") sought Director Review in IPR2025-01023/IPR2025-01071, and its request to file a reply in support of that request was denied.
• Sealing/unavailability: I could not access PACER/PTAB E2E directly; the counsel list above is drawn from public PTAB documents and the mandatory-notice filing. Additional back-up counsel may have been added in later papers not reflected in these sources.

---

B. District Court — Counsel for CM HK (E.D. Tex. No. 2:24-cv-00880, where CM HK is Plaintiff; and N.D. Cal. No. 4:24-cv-06567, where CM HK is Defendant)

Per the E.D. Tex. docket (attorney appearances) and CM HK's own filings:

Supporting personnel appearing in correspondence (not confirmed as counsel of record): Caroline Johnson and Andrew Huffstetter of Offor Evans PLLC appear on the parties' meet-and-confer emails regarding jurisdictional discovery (June 2025), but I have no docket entry confirming their formal appearance.

E.D. Tex. docket note: The E.D. Tex. docket sheet (as of the last public retrieval) reflects CM HK's plaintiff-side team as Shore, Offor, Evans, and Della Porta. The case has since been stayed (Aug. 20, 2025) pending the related N.D. Cal. action, and the case was later the subject of Samsung's renewed stay motion; post-stay filings have been minimal. Because PACER was not directly queryable here, later appearances (if any) may not be captured.

N.D. Cal. cross-check (CM HK as defendant, No. 4:24-cv-06567-JST): CM HK's counsel there is likewise Christopher L. Evans (Offor Evans, admitted pro hac vice) and Michael W. Shore (The Shore Firm, admitted pro hac vice) — the same core team, serving as CM HK's defense counsel against Samsung's declaratory-judgment action. The court's order denying CM HK's Rule 11 sanctions motion (ECF No. 146) is the principal substantive ruling in that case.

---

C. Summary of the "Who's Who" for CM HK

• PTAB (IPR2025-01023): Ginger G. Turner (Gingineer Consulting LLC, Brookhaven, GA) — lead; Christopher L. Evans (Offor Evans PLLC, Dallas) — back-up pro hac vice.
• District court (both Texas and California): Michael W. Shore and Zachary R. Della Porta / Kenneth E. Shore (The Shore Firm LLP, Dallas) plus Christopher L. Evans and Chijioke E. Offor (Offor Evans PLLC, Dallas).
• Role caveat: No separate local counsel is needed in E.D. Tex. because CM HK's Texas firms are already Marshall/Dallas-based; the Samsung side uses Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall) as local counsel, which underscores that CM HK has no analogous Texas local-counsel entry.

Sourcing/limits: Names, bar numbers, addresses, and appearance dates are taken from the PTAB Updated Mandatory Notices (37 C.F.R. § 42.8), PTAB Trials-unit correspondence, the E.D. Tex. docket (Justia/UniCourt summaries, Dkt. Nos. 6, 10, 11, 15), and the N.D. Cal. sanctions order (ECF No. 146). I did not independently verify firm bios for every attorney, and I have not confirmed whether CM HK has retained additional IPR counsel beyond Turner and Evans in later papers.