Litigation

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc.

claims unpatentable

IPR2021-00810

Terminated
2023-01-25

Patents at issue (1)

10615925

Summary

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging US Patent 10615925, owned by [LG Electronics Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/LG%20Electronics%20Inc.) The PTAB issued a final written decision on January 25, 2023, finding all challenged claims (1-15) unpatentable due to anticipation.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This case, IPR2021-00810, involves two of the world's leading South Korean multinational electronics companies: [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd. and LG Electronics Inc. Samsung Electronics, a global giant, is known for its extensive range of consumer electronics, including smartphones, televisions, home appliances, and semiconductors. LG Electronics Inc. is also a prominent innovator and manufacturer in consumer electronics, home appliances, and mobile communications. Both are operating companies that actively compete in various markets.

The proceeding is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) initiated by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. to challenge the validity of US Patent 10615925, owned by LG Electronics Inc. In an IPR, there is no "accused product" in the context of infringement; instead, the patentability of the patent's claims themselves is challenged. US Patent 10615925 is titled "Method and Device for Transmitting/Receiving Downlink Control Information" and generally relates to wireless communication technology, specifically methods and devices used in transmitting and receiving control information in a downlink communication system.

This case was heard before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, an administrative tribunal that reviews the patentability of claims in issued patents. The PTAB offers a specialized, often faster and less expensive, alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity, focusing solely on novelty and non-obviousness based on prior art patents and printed publications. The case is notable because it involves two major industry competitors using the IPR process to resolve a patent dispute, rather than traditional district court litigation. The PTAB ultimately issued a final written decision on January 25, 2023, finding all challenged claims (1-15) of US Patent 10615925 unpatentable due to anticipation, marking a significant win for Samsung against LG's patent.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for IPR2021-00810

This case, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc., IPR2021-00810, was an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging U.S. Patent 10,615,925, owned by LG Electronics Inc. The proceeding culminated in a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable.

Below are the key legal developments in chronological order:

  • IPR Petition Filing: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed the Inter Partes Review petition against U.S. Patent 10,615,925. The exact filing date of the petition for IPR2021-00810 concerning U.S. Patent 10,615,925 by Samsung against LG could not be definitively found in public search results. However, IPRs are typically filed within one year of a petitioner being served with a complaint for infringement, or nine months after the patent issues or any post-grant review has finished. The "2021" in the IPR number indicates it was filed in that year.
  • Institution Decision: The PTAB decided to institute the IPR. The specific date of the institution decision for IPR2021-00810 concerning U.S. Patent 10,615,925 was not readily available through public search. However, by statute, the PTAB must issue an institution decision within approximately six months of the petition's filing.
  • Claim Construction: In an IPR, the PTAB construes claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. The specific details of claim construction for U.S. Patent 10,615,925 within IPR2021-00810 were not detailed in the publicly available summaries.
  • Discovery & Motions: IPRs involve limited discovery. Parties may also file substantive motions such as motions to amend claims or motions to exclude evidence. No specific significant discovery milestones or motions to amend/exclude were publicly detailed for this particular IPR.
  • Oral Hearing: While an oral hearing may be requested in an IPR to allow parties to explain their positions, and the Board typically provides a court reporter for these hearings, it was not specifically detailed in public search results whether an oral hearing took place in IPR2021-00810.
  • Final Written Decision (2023-01-25): The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision on January 25, 2023. In this decision, the Board found all challenged claims (1-15) of U.S. Patent 10,615,925 unpatentable. The basis for this finding was anticipation.
  • Appeal: No record of an appeal of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2021-00810 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was found in public search results. Either party has the right to appeal the PTAB's final decision.

Outcome: The PTAB concluded that U.S. Patent 10,615,925 claims 1-15, owned by LG Electronics Inc., were unpatentable due to anticipation. This resulted in the cancellation of these claims.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

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

Let me dig into the two target threads: the '925 patent's actual press trail and the IPR2021-00810 number.

Let me check whether any outlet covered the case as captioned, and trace the $81M award and the '925 patent's ownership.

Press coverage of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc., IPR2021-00810

I found no published press coverage of the case as captioned. Searches on the caption, the party pairing, the case number, and the patent number returned no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, JD Supra, or trade-press article reporting that Samsung filed an IPR against LG Electronics over U.S. Patent 10,615,925, or reporting a January 25, 2023 final written decision in that dispute. That is a meaningful negative finding rather than a gap in searching: an IPR between two Korean electronics giants that ended in all claims cancelled would ordinarily leave some trace in Law360's or IPWatchdog's PTAB coverage, and none surfaced. It is also consistent with the two conflicts already flagged in the existing sections of this case — namely that Patexia's docket records list IPR2021-00810 as American Well Corporation v. Teladoc Health, Inc. (a telehealth IPR filed April 16, 2021, instituted October 22, 2021, decided July 20, 2022, and terminated on settlement before a final written decision), and that no contemporaneous reporting ties the '925 patent to LG as the party under challenge. I am deferring to the case metadata for the caption and outcome per standing instruction, but the press record does not corroborate it, and I found nothing that would let me attribute a single press claim to the Samsung–LG framing.

The '925 patent's actual press footprint sits in a different dispute — Samsung vs. G+ Communications. IPWatchdog reported on 2026-07-30 that the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB ruling for Samsung Electronics, holding that the Board did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act and that substantial evidence supported its findings. Per IPWatchdog, Samsung had petitioned for IPR of claims 1–5, 7–9, 14, and 20 of G+ Communications' U.S. Patent No. 10,736,130 ("Method and device for uplink control signal transmission, user terminal, and storage medium"), and the Board found that U.S. Patent No. 10,615,925 ("Kwak") anticipated all of the challenged claims — i.e., the '925 patent appears in the press as prior art defeating someone else's claims, not as the patent under review. IPWatchdog's Eileen McDermott quoted the panel rejecting G+'s Dell v. Acceleron argument ("The notion that G+ had no notice of the 'may' language or the arguments surrounding it is one that we squarely reject"), and reported the court's reasoning that the Board's reference to Kwak's "may" language was "only three sentences in a roughly four-page discussion." The underlying appellate record, including the same reasoning, is at Justia's copy of the CAFC disposition in G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 24-2048.

The one reported number is damages, and it belongs to the G+ dispute, not to any Samsung–LG matter. Law360's Intellectual Property section ran a 2026-07-30 item headlined "Fed. Circ. OKs Samsung Win Over Patent Tied To $81M Award," describing the Federal Circuit as having "upheld a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating a patent covering standard-essential 5G wireless network technology that Samsung was directed to pay $81 million for infringing, rejecting G+ Communications LLC's procedural and evidentiary arguments." That is the closest thing to a "reported number" in this cluster, and it is a district-court damages award tied to the '130 patent's standard-essential 5G status — the same item also appeared in Law360's telecom and appellate feeds with identical wording. Notably, this reporting goes beyond the appellate record in one respect: the Federal Circuit's own disposition concerns APA notice and substantial-evidence review of anticipation, and does not itself recite or revisit the $81 million figure; the damages number appears to come from the underlying West Texas litigation rather than the opinion. I did not find any outlet reporting settlement terms, an injunction, or an executive statement from either Samsung or LG about the '925 patent.

Two sourcing caveats you should carry forward. First, the Law360 and IPWatchdog items above were surfaced through search-result headlines and article text in IPWatchdog's case; the Law360 material I retrieved is the section-index headline and summary, not a full article body, so I am attributing the $81 million figure to Law360's index description rather than quoting the article itself. Second, and more important: none of this coverage describes Samsung litigating against LG over the '925 patent. If the case metadata is right that IPR2021-00810 is Samsung v. LG over the '925 patent, then the press simply did not cover it — but I would treat the absence of any press trace, combined with the Patexia and G+ conflicts already documented in the prior sections, as a strong signal that the proceeding's real caption and posture need to be confirmed against the P-TACTS docket before this section is relied on. I would rather report the coverage gap honestly than manufacture a Samsung–LG narrative the press never wrote.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I was unable to definitively identify the counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in IPR2021-00810 through the conducted web searches.

While several prominent law firms, including Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Robins Kaplan, Quinn Emanuel, Paul Hastings LLP, WilmerHale, Baker Botts LLP, DLA Piper, McKool Smith, and Irell & Manella LLP, have represented Samsung in various patent litigation and Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, none of the search results explicitly list the counsel for the specific IPR2021-00810.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) is the official means for accessing dockets and final written decisions for IPRs, which would contain the precise counsel information. However, direct access to the specific IPR2021-00810 docket or its Final Written Decision document to extract this detail was not achievable through the general web search queries performed.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research LG Electronics' counsel of record in IPR2021-00810 (as patent owner, LG is the "defendant" side here).

The metadata may conflict with search results — let me verify the case number and dig into the docket.

Let me verify the case number mapping and the patent's owner, since search results suggest a conflict.

Counsel of record for the "defendant" side — IPR2021-00810

Framing note (important): IPR2021-00810 is an inter partes review, not an infringement action, and the case metadata lists Samsung as Petitioner and LG Electronics as the opposing party. In PTAB practice the opposing party is the Patent Owner, not a "defendant," and there is no local-counsel requirement (counsel appear under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(a), with district-court litigators admitted pro hac vice by motion under § 42.10(c)). So the question maps to: who represented Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc. before the Board?

Bottom line

I could not verify LG's counsel of record in IPR2021-00810 from the sources reachable here. No P-TACTS docket entry, mandatory notice, power of attorney, or final written decision for that specific proceeding surfaced in my searches. I am therefore not naming anyone as "lead counsel in IPR2021-00810," because doing so would be fabrication. What follows is (a) one concrete, cited lead that may or may not belong to LG, and (b) documented evidence of the firms LG does routinely use before the PTAB — both useful for a targeted docket pull, neither a substitute for it.

Cited lead found (associated with a different Samsung IPR — not confirmed for -00810)

In Samsung's Power of Attorney filed in its petition for IPR of U.S. Patent No. 10,824,512 (a Samsung petition executed/served November 25, 2021), the patent owner's representatives were identified as follows:

  • Joshua W. Budwin — McKool Smith, P.C., 303 Colorado, Suite 2100, Austin, TX 78701 — courtesy-copy recipient alongside Samsung's counsel (frequent PTAB and E.D. Tex. patent litigator).
  • R. Mitch Verboncoeur — McKool Smith, P.C., Austin, TX.
  • George T. Fishback, Jr. — McKool Smith, P.C., Austin, TX.
  • Richard A. Kamprath — McKool Smith, P.C., 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500, Dallas, TX.
  • Van Pelt Yi & James LLP, 10050 N. Foothill Blvd. #200, Cupertino, CA 95014 — listed as the patent owner's correspondence address of record (i.e., prosecution/agent address, routinely a Korean-client-focused firm).
  • Samsung's own counsel in that matter (for contrast, so the names aren't confused): Marc J. Pensabene (lead, Reg. No. 37,416), Ryan Yagura (first back-up, Reg. No. 47,191), Nicholas J. Whilt (back-up, Reg. No. 72,081) — O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York and Los Angeles.
  • Source: Samsung Power of Attorney, PTAB (P-TACTS document download, petition artifact for the '512 patent): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1548793](/patent/1548793)/download-documents

Caveat I want to flag explicitly: that document identifies the patent owner's representatives on a companion Samsung petition; the document as retrieved does not establish that the patent owner in question is LG Electronics, and it is not IPR2021-00810. Do not treat it as confirmed. It is offered only as a high-value lead because Samsung filed a wave of IPRs against the same patent owner in the same window. (The retrieved text is also partially truncated where the patent owner's caption would appear.)

Documented evidence of LG Electronics' standing PTAB counsel (different proceeding)

LG's Updated Mandatory Notices in IPR2023-00461 (Patent 7,839,452), dated May 10, 2023, list LG Electronics Inc.'s full PTAB team — evidence of the firm and attorney roster LG relies on:

Name Role Firm / office
Eliot D. Williams (Reg. No. 50,822) Lead counsel Baker Botts L.L.P., 700 K Street NW, Washington, D.C.
Mark A. Speegle (Reg. No. 77,512) Back-up counsel Baker Botts L.L.P., Austin, TX
Theodore W. Chandler (Reg. No. 50,319) Back-up counsel Baker Botts L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA
Sean Lee Back-up counsel Baker Botts L.L.P., Austin, TX
Brianna L. Potter (Reg. No. 76,748) Back-up counsel Baker Botts L.L.P., Palo Alto, CA
Ferenc Pazmandi (Reg. No. 66,216) Back-up counsel Baker Botts L.L.P., San Francisco, CA
Lute Yang (Reg. No. 79,253) Back-up counsel Baker Botts L.L.P., San Francisco, CA

Source: Patent Owner LG Electronics Inc.'s Updated Mandatory Notices, IPR2023-00461: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1550905](/patent/1550905)/download-documents

Elsewhere, LG Electronics has appeared before the Board with Greenberg Traurig LLP (Herbert H. Finn, Reg. No. 38,139, lead; Jonathan E. Giroux, Reg. No. 66,639, back-up) as petitioner in IPR2017-00448 and in the Papst Licensing matters (source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1484374](/patent/1484374)/download-documents), and LG Electronics Inc./LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. appointed counsel jointly with Google/Samsung in IPR2020-00846 (Parus Holdings) (source: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-00846/...). These show LG's counsel relationships but do not tie any of these attorneys to IPR2021-00810.

Metadata conflicts you should resolve before relying on anything above

  1. Case-number conflict. A Patexia docket summary reports IPR2021-00810 as American Well Corporation v. Teladoc Health, Inc. (filed Apr. 16, 2021; institution Oct. 22, 2021; decision Jul. 20, 2022; terminated–settled; APJs Scanlon, Browne, Szpondowski) — a telehealth dispute, not Samsung/LG. Source: https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/American-Well-Corporation-v-Teladoc-Health-Inc-id-[151754](/patent/151754). This directly contradicts the case metadata's caption, parties, and outcome. Per your operating rules I am deferring to the metadata, but you should know the number is asserted elsewhere under a different caption.
  2. Patent-status conflict. U.S. Patent No. 10,615,925 ("Kwak") appears in the public record as prior art relied on by Samsung, not as the patent under review: IPWatchdog reports the Board found the '925 patent anticipated claims 1–5, 7–9, 14 and 20 of G+ Communications' U.S. Patent No. 10,736,130, affirmed by the Federal Circuit (July 2026). Source: https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/07/30/federal-circuit-affirms-ptab-win-samsung-invalidating-signal-transmission-patent/. That is consistent with LG ownership of the '925 patent but means its PTAB paper trail may sit in Samsung-vs.-G+ IPRs rather than in a Samsung-vs.-LG IPR. This materially affects which docket actually holds the LG counsel names.
  3. Patent title. The metadata's title ("Method and Device for Transmitting/Receiving Downlink Control Information") is consistent with the inventors/spec of the LG 5G control-signal family (cf. LG's EP filing listing LEE, Seungmin; LEE, Hyunho; KWAK, Kyuhwan, priority May 2017), but I did not independently confirm the '925 patent's front page.

Recommended verification steps (where the answer actually lives)

  • PTAB P-TACTS / E2E docket for IPR2021-00810: pull Paper 2 (Petition) and Paper 3 (Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)), which name lead and back-up counsel (§ 42.8(b)(3)), plus any Patent Owner Power of Attorney (§ 42.10(b)) and any Decision on Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission. Because the proceeding terminated Jan. 25, 2023, the FWD's caption page also lists counsel of record for both sides.
  • Unified Patents / Docket Navigator / Lex Machina PTAB dockets, which index attorney names per matter.
  • Firm press releases/Law360 for any Samsung–LG PTAB engagement in 2021–2023 (McKool Smith, Baker Botts, Greenberg Traurig are the LG-side names that recur in the record).

What I can state with confidence

  • Samsung's Petitioner-side counsel in the related Samsung IPR records I found are O'Melveny & Myers attorneys (Pensabene, Yagura, Whilt) — but that is a different patent, and the prior section on Petitioner representatives remains the operative one for Samsung.
  • LG Electronics' recurring PTAB representation in the located record is Baker Botts LLP (Williams/Speegle/Chandler/Lee/Potter/Pazmandi/Yang), with Greenberg Traurig LLP (Finn/Giroux) in older matters.
  • No attorney can be reliably attributed to LG as "counsel of record in IPR2021-00810" on the evidence gathered; the McKool Smith / Van Pelt Yi & James group is a lead from a companion Samsung petition whose patent-owner caption I could not verify. If the docket papers are sealed or counsel has not appeared (or has withdrawn), that should be stated on the record rather than inferred — and I found no sealed-file indicator either way.