Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd.

This case, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Maxell, Ltd., IPR2025-01316, is an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where institution was denied on the merits on January 9, 2026. The petitioner, [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd., is a leading global consumer electronics manufacturer. The patent owner, Maxell, Ltd., is a Japanese technology company with a diversified intellectual property portfolio, which has become an active patent licensor and litigant across various technology domains globally. Maxell is described as asserting patents that originated from Hitachi Consumer Electronics, which Maxell acquired in 2013, following the expiration of a 2011 licensing agreement with Samsung in 2021.

The IPR was filed defensively by Samsung in response to a broader patent infringement campaign launched by Maxell against Samsung. This campaign includes a significant lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Case No. 5:25-cv-00052-RWS). In this underlying district court litigation, Maxell alleged that Samsung's smart devices, including Galaxy smartphones, tablets, SmartThings stations, laptops, and other personal electronic devices, infringed on several of Maxell's patents. The IPR specifically targeted U.S. Patent 10,812,646, titled "Image processing apparatus, image processing method, and storage medium," which generally describes technology for detecting and processing specific images within photographed content. This technical area aligns with the broader allegations in the infringement suit related to "locating recordings" or the "reproduction of images and videos" on smart devices.

The case is notable for several reasons, particularly the connection between the IPR and the underlying district court litigation. Maxell initially secured a significant jury verdict of $111.7 million against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas for willful infringement of three patents covering smart device technologies. However, this verdict was later overturned by U.S. District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III, who granted Samsung's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), finding insufficient evidence of infringement and invalidating claims in two of the three asserted patents. Samsung had filed ten IPR petitions, including IPR2025-01316 for patent 10,812,646, against all patents asserted by Maxell in the district court case as a strategy to challenge their validity. The PTAB's denial of institution for IPR2025-01316 means Samsung was unsuccessful in challenging this specific patent's validity before the Board on the merits presented. Maxell's litigation strategy against Samsung is global, involving concurrent lawsuits in the U.S., Germany, Japan, and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. Maxell's aggressive patent assertion, stemming from expired licensing agreements, highlights a common pattern of IP monetization.

The litigation between Maxell, Ltd. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Case No. 5:25-cv-00052-RWS in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) involves a patent infringement campaign by Maxell against Samsung's smart devices. This district court case is complemented by multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), initiated by Samsung to challenge the validity of Maxell's asserted patents.

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments and outcomes:

District Court Litigation (Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 5:25-cv-00052-RWS):

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: Maxell initiated the lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. Maxell's infringement contentions were served by August 12, 2025. Maxell later served amended infringement contentions by October 20, 2025.
• Docket Control Orders: On August 18, 2025, Judge Robert W. Schroeder III signed a Docket Control Order and an Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art. This order set various deadlines, including a Markman hearing for May 6, 2026, and a pretrial conference for August 10, 2027, with the jury trial to be assigned a date later. The court cancelled a previously scheduled scheduling conference for August 19, 2025.
• Pre-trial Motions:
  • Motion to Stay Pending IPR: On October 24, 2025, Samsung filed a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the inter partes reviews. Samsung argued that a stay was appropriate because the most burdensome stages of the case—discovery, expert reports, pretrial motions, trial, and post-trial motions—were still in the future. At the time of this motion, the parties had exchanged initial disclosures, initial discovery responses, initial document productions, and Maxell's infringement contentions.
• Claim Construction (Markman): The Markman hearing in the district court case is scheduled for May 6, 2026. Samsung provided preliminary claim constructions for terms from various patents, often adopting constructions from related IPR proceedings, including IPR2025-01316 for patent 10,812,646.
• Discovery: The initial disclosures, initial discovery responses, and initial document productions had been exchanged by October 24, 2025.
• Summary Judgment: The docket control order sets a dispositive motion hearing for May 11, 2027.
• Trial & Post-Trial: A jury trial date is to be assigned by the court, with the pretrial conference set for August 10, 2027. Maxell estimated a 10-day trial, while Samsung estimated at least 14 days for a 10-patent trial.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

Samsung filed ten IPR petitions challenging all patents asserted by Maxell in the district court case.

• IPR2025-01316 (U.S. Patent 10,812,646):
  • Filing Date: July 17, 2025.
  • Institution Decision: Institution was denied on January 9, 2026. This means Samsung's challenge to the validity of US patent 10,812,646 at the PTAB was unsuccessful on the merits presented.
• Other IPRs:
  • Samsung filed its first three IPR petitions (on the '650, '646, and '088 patents) before Maxell served its initial infringement contentions.
  • Samsung filed five more IPR petitions (on the '417, '228, '645, '198, and '950 patents) less than a month after Maxell served its infringement contentions.
  • IPR2025-01309 (U.S. Patent 7,577,417) was filed on August 27, 2025, and institution was granted on February 9, 2026.
  • IPR2025-01310 (U.S. Patent 10,783,681) was filed, and institution was granted on March 22, 2026. Samsung stipulated that if IPR was instituted for IPR2025-01310, it would not pursue the same grounds against the '681 patent in the civil action.
  • IPR2025-01312 was filed on August 28, 2025, and institution was granted on February 9, 2026.
  • IPR2025-01313 (U.S. Patent 10,783,228) was filed on August 28, 2025, and institution was denied on February 10, 2026.

Effect of IPRs on Litigation: The PTAB's decisions on institution, whether granted or denied, directly impact the scope of the district court litigation. For patents where institution was denied, like 10,812,646 (IPR2025-01316) and 10,783,228 (IPR2025-01313), the validity challenges for those specific grounds will not proceed at the PTAB, potentially leaving Maxell to continue asserting those patents in the district court. For IPRs that were instituted (e.g., IPR2025-01309, IPR2025-01310, IPR2025-01312), the district court proceedings on those patents may be stayed or narrowed as the PTAB addresses the validity challenges. Samsung's motion to stay the district court case pending IPR outcomes highlights this strategic interplay.

I'll research press coverage from multiple angles.

Let me dig into specific angles: the PTAB denial coverage, the discretionary-denial policy angle, and the ITC action involving the '646 patent.

Press coverage of Samsung v. Maxell — what the trade and mainstream press has reported

Coverage of this IPR specifically is essentially absent. I could not locate any article — in Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently‑O, Ars Technica, The Verge, or JD Supra — that reports on the January 9, 2026 denial of institution in IPR2025‑01316 itself. The only records of that outcome I found are database entries, not journalism: IP Verse lists the proceeding as "Institution Denied" with an Institution Decision: Deny on Jan 9, 2026 and a Board "Director Discretionary Decision: Refer" on Dec 1, 2025 (i.e., the Director referred Maxell's discretionary‑denial request to the Board rather than deciding it himself), and Ex Parte carries the petition's grounds (obviousness over Esaka, Guihot, Bandyopadhyay and Sharif‑Ahmadi against a portable‑terminal remote‑control/lock‑screen invention). Notably, the press is being used as evidence inside this proceeding: Maxell's discretionary‑denial briefs in the companion Samsung IPRs cite Law360 articles as exhibits — Ex. 2008 ("Maxell Settles Patent Suit Against Apple Over Mobile Tech"), Ex. 2009 ("Maxell Scores $43M EDTX Jury Win In ZTE Patent Trial"), Ex. 2010 ("Maxell, Huawei Reach Terms To End Smartphone Patent Suit") and Ex. 1034 (a Sept. 8, 2025 Law360 piece, "Stewart Says New Patent Policies Aim to Bring Stability") — to argue Samsung is a former licensee engaged in gamesmanship, per the PTAB filing index.

The press has instead covered the surrounding campaign, and its numbers are well documented. Law360 ran a running case feed for Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. 5:25‑cv‑00052) recording that a Texas federal jury found on May 28, 2025 that Samsung owed about $111.7 million; that Law360 (Dorothy Atkins, Sept. 29, 2025) reported Judge Robert W. Schroeder III's written rationale for overturning it — expert testimony that was "conclusory" and insufficient to support the infringement verdict — after Law360's Sept. 19, 2025 report that the judge had cleared Samsung; and that on Aug. 19, 2025 Samsung opposed Maxell's bid for enhanced damages, before Law360 reported that the PTAB invalidated most challenged claims in two of the smart‑device patents (Oct. 31, 2025) and, separately, rejected Samsung's challenge to various claims of another Maxell patent a day later (Nov. 3, 2025). A Mondaq/analysis piece (High Damage Awards in 2025 — Judge Gilstrap's Courtroom in the Spotlight) supplies the granularity the daily coverage lacks: the $111.7M broke down as roughly $38.1M ('086), $28.2M ('848) and $45.4M ('815) on a 1% running royalty per patent through trial; the jury found willfulness; Judge Schroeder's JMOL "toppl[ed]" the award; Maxell appealed and then asked the Federal Circuit to stay that appeal pending the PTAB proceedings; the court had earlier granted summary judgment of noninfringement on two other patents (10,129,590; 11,223,757). Samsung's own side publicized the win via a DLA Piper press release (Oct. 13, 2025), which adds that Judge Schroeder denied Maxell's requests for enhanced damages, interest and a permanent injunction, and deferred willfulness and damages until after appeal.

On the '646 patent — the patent at issue here — the most consequential recent press-relevant development is regulatory, not editorial. The USITC announced on Aug. 12, 2026 that it instituted Inv. No. 337‑TA‑1516 on Maxell's July 10, 2026 complaint (amended July 24, 2026) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. over "smartphones and tablets," seeking a limited exclusion order and cease‑and‑desist orders; the asserted patents are U.S. 10,812,646 (claims 1‑6, 8, 11), 12,513,408, 12,061,760, 12,418,692, 12,185,211 and 12,647,935 (see the Federal Register notice). The trade press picked this up — International Trade Today reported Maxell is seeking a permanent limited exclusion order, a permanent cease‑and‑desist order and a bond during the 60‑day presidential review period. Separately, a Law360 headline dated Aug. 7, 2026 — "Samsung, Maxell Square Off On Import Ban In ITC Patent Case" — reports Samsung urging the ITC not to ban imports of smartphones and tablets that a judge found to infringe a Maxell patent, calling a ban a boon to a "foreign serial litigant." That framing is significant for this IPR: it shows the '646 patent being asserted at the ITC months after Samsung's PTAB challenge to it was refused institution — i.e., the denial did not remove the patent from Maxell's campaign. Caveat: the Aug. 7, 2026 Law360 item references an ALJ infringement finding, which cannot belong to 337‑TA‑1516 (instituted Aug. 12, 2026), so it likely concerns a different, earlier Maxell–Samsung ITC investigation; I could not confirm which, and I have not verified the article's body text (headline and summary only).

Where accounts go beyond, or diverge from, the record. Mainstream gadget press personalizes the fight in ways the docket does not: PhoneArena, citing The Korea Herald, reported the Texarkana verdict covered Galaxy phones, tablets, SmartThings and home appliances; that Maxell sought almost $130 million but the jury awarded almost $112 million; that the dispute began in 2023 after Samsung "claimed the patents were now invalid"; and that Maxell then sued in Germany, Japan and the U.S. — while conceding it was "not clear whether Samsung will agree to pay or whether it will appeal." Aggregator write‑ups are the least reliable: IIPLA (May 29, 2025) misstated the patent set for the verdict (listing 10,176,848 / 8,982,086 / 11,017,815, which matches the record) but reversed the firm roles, saying "DLA Piper and Mayer Brown, representing Maxell Ltd. and Samsung Electronics" — the opposite of the actual alignment; its later piece, IIPLA (Nov. 2, 2025), says the PTAB "invalidated the majority of the claims brought forth by Samsung," garbling which party lost. Syndicated summaries such as Legal News Feed (Apr. 28, 2026) merely re‑report the Law360 item that the PTAB "threw out all the claims Samsung challenged in a pair of Maxell video processing patents," adding analyst‑style speculation about settlement and strategy that is not in any opinion. Practitioner commentary is more useful for the why than the what: Banner & Witcoff's PTAB Highlights (Nov. 14, 2025) flags a Samsung v. Maxell printed‑publication ruling (IPR2024‑00735, Paper 51, Oct. 30, 2025) and, under the heading "On second thought…we will discretionarily deny your petition," the wave of Director‑level denials; and Steptoe's report on the PTAB Masters 2026 conference (Jan. 29, 2026) relays the panel statistic that since Oct. 20, 2025 roughly 50% of Director institution decisions have been discretionary denials, 35% referred to the PTAB and only 11% instituted — context that plausibly explains how a case like IPR2025‑01316 ended in denial, even though no outlet has reported the denial itself. Two final flags for the earlier sections of this summary: (1) no press account I found describes the '646 patent as an "image processing apparatus" patent — the ITC notice places it among smartphone/tablet patents, and the PTAB papers describe a portable‑terminal remote‑control invention, so the "image processing" characterization remains unsupported; and (2) the press consistently reports the PTAB side as involving Law360‑covered final written decisions, not the mere institution denials at issue here, so any inference that the '646 patent has been adjudicated unpatentable would be wrong — Maxell is now asserting it affirmatively at the ITC.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• 1. Petitioner Fails to Establish that a POSITA Would Combine Esaka, Guihot, and Banyopadhyay
• Samsung hit with $112M verdict in Maxell patent fight, and the drama's far from over - Read Next Galaxy S27 buyers need only one upgrade, but Samsung plans to disappoint them
• High Damage Awards In 2025: Judge Gilstrap's Courtroom In The Spotlight - - Maxell v
• Certain Mobile Electronic Devices; Notice of Institution of Investigation - United States Government Publishing Office
• View More landing Page | DLA Piper
• Maxell, Ltd. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al - April 28, 2026
• Corporate : Law360 UK : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Trials : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Intellectual Property : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Erik Fuehrer | DLA Piper - Erik R. Fuehrer

I'll research counsel of record for the plaintiff (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) in this IPR and the related district court litigation.

Counsel of Record for the Plaintiff / Petitioner — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Important framing note. In this proceeding the party denominated "plaintiff" in the case metadata is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. In PTAB practice it is styled Petitioner (joined by co-petitioner Samsung Electronics America, Inc.), while Maxell, Ltd. is the Patent Owner. In the parallel EDTX action the roles are reversed (Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 5:25-cv-00052-RWS), where Samsung is the defendant — so the same DLA Piper team appears on both sides of the caption depending on forum. (The previously generated "Defendant representatives" section covered Maxell's side; this section covers Samsung's.)

PTAB — IPR2025-01316 (Petitioner's counsel)

The petition and related papers were filed and signed by DLA Piper LLP (US), Washington, D.C.

Caveat: I was able to confirm these four names from the PTAB service certificates in IPR2025-01316 (e.g., the Patent Owner's Preliminary Response served Oct. 30, 2025, and the Sur-Reply served Nov. 28, 2025, both served on Tamburo, Heintz, Minutoli and Schuster at DLA Piper addresses, with a courtesy copy to a DLA group mailbox "DLA-Maxell-2-IPRs@us.dlapiper.com"). I was not able to retrieve the Petitioner's Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) for this proceeding, so the formal lead/back-up designation among these four is inferred (Tamburo, as the signing attorney, is the apparent lead) rather than confirmed. Service on additional DLA Piper attorneys may exist on documents I did not retrieve. No in-house Samsung attorney appears on the public PTAB filings in this case, and no pro hac vice admissions were found in the retrieved material.

Related EDTX litigation — Samsung's defense team (5:25-cv-00052-RWS)

The same DLA Piper group defends Samsung in the ten-patent EDTX action from which this IPR springs:

• DLA Piper trial team (per firm press releases, Oct. 13 and Nov. 12, 2025): Partners Sean Cunningham and Erin Gibson (Washington, DC), Erik Fuehrer and Mark Fowler (Palo Alto), Brian Erickson (Austin), Michael Jay (Los Angeles), James Heintz and Gianni Minutoli (Reston), and Helena Kiepura (Washington, DC), with associates Martin Ellison, Sangwon Sung, Paulina Starostka and Benjamin Mueller. This is the team credited with the Court's JMOL ruling reversing the $111.7M Maxell verdict (D. E. Tex., Judge Robert W. Schroeder III) — the DLA victory was noted by Law.com as a "Litigator of the Week" runner-up.
• Robert Buergi — DLA Piper partner whose firm bio expressly lists "Maxell, Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., E.D. Tex. — Representing defendant Samsung in this ten-patent case with varied technologies."
• Melissa Richards Smith — filed Samsung's Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Review (Dkt. 72) and Samsung's Responsive Claim Construction Brief in 5:25-cv-00052; she is the Marshall, Texas-based attorney widely reported as Samsung's EDTX local counsel (firm affiliation — Gillam & Smith LLP — is reported but was not confirmed in the docket text I retrieved). Judge Schroeder granted the stay on April 2, 2026 (Dkt. 74), which post-dates and supersedes the Oct. 24, 2025 stay motion discussed in the earlier section.

Discrepancies to flag against the previously generated sections

1. Maxell's IPR counsel. The prior "Defendant representatives" section names Finnegan Henderson (Stephen M. Forte, Mark J. Feldstein, Elizabeth Ferrill) as Maxell's IPR counsel for IPR2025-01316. Every primary PTAB document I retrieved for this proceeding instead serves Maxell's counsel at Mayer Brown LLP — Robert G. Pluta, Amanda S. Bonner, Saqib J. Siddiqui, Daniel Kim (and, in a related Maxell IPR, Matthew A. Stanford and Seth W. Bruneel). Mayer Brown is also Maxell's district-court trial team (Jamie B. Beaber et al., with Patton Tidwell & Culbertson as Texarkana local counsel). The Finnegan attribution appears unsupported for this specific IPR and should be treated as unverified.
2. Procedural status. The earlier section states institution was denied "on the merits on January 9, 2026," which matches the metadata. Note that the PTAB record also shows Maxell pressing a discretionary-denial theory (its Nov. 25, 2025 correspondence with the USPTO Solicitor's office arguing that Samsung's ~20 IPRs against Maxell warranted denial under the Director's new discretionary-denial policy) — so the denial may rest on discretionary as well as merits grounds. I could not retrieve the actual institution decision paper to confirm which.
3. Patent subject matter. The prior summary describes U.S. 10,812,646 as "Image processing apparatus, image processing method, and storage medium" (detecting/processing images). The primary PTAB filings in IPR2025-01316 instead argue a portable-terminal remote-control invention — three conditional display modes on a lock screen upon waking from a "sleep state," with prior art Esaka, Guihot and Bandyopadhyay. The subject-matter description in the earlier section appears to be inconsistent with the '646 patent as litigated in this IPR.

I'll research the counsel representing Maxell, Ltd. (the patent owner/defendant in IPR2025-01316 and plaintiff in the related district court case).

Let me dig deeper into Maxell's PTAB counsel of record for IPR2025-01316 specifically.

Counsel of Record — Defendant(s)

Threshold clarification on party roles

The case metadata is internally consistent but the labels can trip you up across the two forums:

So in this IPR, the "defendant" is Maxell, Ltd., appearing as Patent Owner/Respondent. (In the parallel district court case the roles flip and Samsung is the defendant — that side is Samsung's DLA Piper/AKD litigation team, which the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section already covered for the IPR context.) Below I address Maxell's counsel of record in the IPR, and flag the district-court overlay at the end.

---

Maxell, Ltd.'s PTAB counsel of record — IPR2025-01316

Maxell is represented in the IPR by Mayer Brown LLP. The firm is Patent Owner's counsel of record in the proceeding (IP Verse lists "Respondent Counsel: Pluta, Robert et al."; PTAB service lists and mandatory notices confirm the Mayer Brown team). Maxell filed its Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 on August 6, 2025 designating counsel.

Service of papers in IPR2025-01316 is made to rpluta@mayerbrown.com, asbonner@mayerbrown.com, dkim@mayerbrown.com, ssiddiqui@mayerbrown.com, with a courtesy copy to the dedicated address maxell-samsung-service@mayerbrown.com (see Petitioners' Stipulation, served Aug. 29, 2025, PTAB document).

Additional names to verify: A Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices under § 42.8 (dated May 19, 2026, in a companion Maxell–Samsung IPR) lists back-up counsel including Siddiqui, "mstanford@mayerbrown.com" and "sbruneel@mayerbrown.com" (Seth Bruneel, Mayer Brown) alongside Javed. Because that document appears in a companion proceeding rather than IPR2025-01316 itself, I'd treat Stanford and Bruneel as likely but unconfirmed for the '646 IPR. (PTAB document)

---

District-court overlay (E.D. Tex. 5:25-cv-00052-RWS)

Because the IPR is part of a coordinated global campaign, the same core Mayer Brown team appears for Maxell in the district court, supported by Texas local counsel:

• Jamie B. Beaber — Mayer Brown (Washington, DC); Maxell's designated attorney-in-charge in the district court case (E.D. Tex. appearances filed April 21, 2025).
• Geoffrey Patton Culbertson and Kelly B. Tidwell — Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP (Texarkana, TX) — Texas local counsel for Maxell.
• Also appearing for Maxell in the district court: Alan M. Grimaldi, Kfir B. Levy, James A. Fussell III, Bryan C. Nese, Tiffany A. Miller, Alison T. Gelsleichter, So Ra Ko, Courtney M. Krawice, Séké G. Godo, Seth W. Bruneel, Tariq Javed (Mayer Brown); and Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith, LLP). Docket: Justia 5:25-cv-00052; PACER Monitor.

The Mayer Brown trial team (led by Beaber) also secured, and then saw overturned, the $111.7M Maxell verdict in the prior Samsung action (Maxell v. Samsung, No. 5:23-cv-00092) — relevant background for counsel's familiarity with the patents at issue. (Mayer Brown announcement)

---

Flags and caveats

1. Role-label ambiguity. The prior section of this case summary listed Samsung's (Petitioner's) representatives under the heading "Plaintiff representatives." Since the IPR caption designates Maxell as the defendant/respondent, this section supplies Maxell's counsel. If the reader intended the district-court defendant (Samsung), that is the DLA Piper / AKD team already covered — cross-referenced, not repeated.

2. Possible firm transition for Petitioner's side (not Defendant). Search results show the same Samsung trial team branded both as DLA Piper and as AKD Partners (e.g., the Oct. 2025 JMOL victory announcement appears on both firms' sites with the identical attorney roster). This appears to reflect a spin-off/rebranding rather than conflicting representations. It does not affect Maxell's counsel, but should be noted for the opposing-party sections.

3. Office locations. Robert Pluta is listed on the E.D. Tex. docket as "Mayer Brown LLP – Chicago," while his PTAB filings list a Washington, DC telephone number (202-263-3000). I have not independently confirmed which office he is primarily resident in.

4. Unconfirmed names. Michael Stanford and Seth Bruneel appear on a § 42.8 updated notice, but I could not confirm that the specific document belongs to IPR2025-01316 (it appears in a companion Maxell–Samsung IPR). Daniel Kim's Mayer Brown office is likewise unconfirmed.

5. No counsel information in IPR2025-01316 appears to be sealed; the designations come from public PTAB filings (Mandatory Notices, service certificates, and the Petitioners' Aug. 29, 2025 stipulation).