Samsung Semiconductor Inc. et al. v. W&W Sens Devices Inc.

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by Samsung Semiconductor Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, and Samsung Electronics America Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") against W&W Sens Devices Inc. at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Samsung is a global technology conglomerate, operating heavily in consumer electronics, IT and mobile communications, and device solutions, including the manufacturing of semiconductors and image sensors. W&W Sens Devices Inc. is identified as an "inventor-controlled plaintiff" and a "patent asserter" by RPX Insight, indicating it operates as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) that derives revenue from patent enforcement rather than product manufacturing. W&W Sens Devices Inc. develops photodetector technology, specifically thin silicon photosensors utilizing microholes for lightwave trapping to enhance sensitivity in red and near-infrared (NIR) wavelengths.

The dispute centers around U.S. Patent 11621360, titled "Microstructure enhanced absorption photosensitive devices." This patent generally describes semiconductor devices that incorporate microstructures, such as microholes, within light-receiving surfaces to improve light absorption and quantum efficiency, particularly for thin silicon in optical interconnect and CMOS image sensor applications. The IPR was initiated by Samsung as a defensive measure against a patent infringement lawsuit filed by W&W Sens Devices Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00854). In that district court action, W&W Sens Devices Inc. alleges that Samsung's CMOS image sensors, found in products like the Samsung Galaxy S23 FE and S24 Ultra smartphones, infringe its patents.

The IPR, IPR2025-00994, was filed at the PTAB on June 20, 2025, challenging the patentability of U.S. Patent 11621360. The PTAB, under Administrative Judge John A. Squires, subsequently decided not to institute the review on procedural grounds, with the institution decision issued on November 20, 2025. This "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome is notable because it means the PTAB declined to fully review the validity of the patent, allowing it to proceed unchallenged in the parallel district court litigation. W&W Sens Devices Inc. had argued for discretionary denial, citing Samsung's long-standing notice of the patent and related family patents, and W&Wsens's investment in the inventions, aligning with PTAB's discretionary denial framework. This case highlights the strategic interplay between district court patent infringement litigation and IPR proceedings, particularly when NPEs assert patents against major operating companies in key technology sectors like semiconductors and mobile devices.

The provided information details an Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2025-00994, filed by Samsung Semiconductor Inc. et al. against W&W Sens Devices Inc., challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,621,360. This IPR is part of a broader patent dispute between the parties, including a co-pending district court litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

Here's a chronological summary of the legal developments and outcome:

Parallel District Court Litigation - Eastern District of Texas (2:24-cv-00854)

• 2024-10-21: Complaint Filed. W&Wsens Devices Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:24-cv-00854. This complaint alleged infringement of five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,621,360, related to "semiconductor photodetectors" and CMOS image sensors. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2024-11-06: Extension of Time to Answer. The court granted an unopposed motion for extension of time for Samsung to file its answer, move, or otherwise respond to the complaint, setting a new answer due date of 2025-02-11.
• 2025-01-21: Scheduling/Case Management Conference. A conference was set for 2025-01-21 before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2025-11-03: Motion to Stay Denied. Samsung filed a motion to stay the district court case pending the outcome of Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings for each of the asserted patents, including the '360 patent. The motion was denied without prejudice, as the PTAB had not yet instituted review for any of the asserted patents, making the motion premature.
• 2026-01-12: Technical Advisor Appointed. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap signed an order appointing Mr. Michael D. Paul as the Court's technical advisor in the case.
• 2026-02-23: Docket Last Retrieved. The docket for the district court case was last retrieved on February 23, 2026, indicating the case was still open.
• 2026-05-01: Pre-trial Motions. W&Wsens Devices Inc. filed multiple motions, including sealed motions to strike and exclude certain expert opinions under Daubert, a motion to exclude duplicative opinions, and a motion for summary judgment on Defendants' affirmative defenses.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Samsung initiated multiple IPR proceedings against W&W Sens Devices Inc. challenging various patents, including IPR2025-00994 for U.S. Patent No. 11,621,360.

• 2025-05-20: IPR2025-00995 and IPR2025-00996 Filed. Samsung filed IPR petitions challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,468,543 (IPR2025-00995) and U.S. Patent No. 10,446,700 (IPR2025-00996). Both were "Not Instituted - Procedural" on 2025-10-17.
• 2025-06-20: IPR2025-00994 Filed. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC filed IPR2025-00994 challenging claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,621,360.
• 2025-06-25: IPR2025-00993 Filed. Samsung filed IPR2025-00993 challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,087,871. This IPR was "Not Instituted - Procedural" on 2025-11-20.
• 2025-07-14: IPR2025-00997 Filed. Samsung filed IPR2025-00997 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,525,084. This IPR resulted in a "Procedural Termination" on 2025-11-07.
• 2025-08-28: PGR2025-00082 Filed. Samsung filed PGR2025-00082 challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,243,948, which is currently "Pending - Instituted."
• 2025-09-08: Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial. W&Wsens Devices Inc. filed a Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial in IPR2025-00994. W&Wsens argued for denial based on strong settled expectations with respect to its related patents, the existence of a parallel district court action, Samsung's alleged long-standing notice of the '360 patent, and W&Wsens' substantial investment in the inventions. The patent owner also noted that Samsung had filed IPRs challenging other related W&Wsens patents that issued long ago and was challenging their validity in the District Court Action.
• 2025-11-20: IPR2025-00994 Not Instituted - Procedural. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not institute IPR2025-00994 for U.S. Patent No. 11,621,360, on procedural grounds. The non-institution decision for this IPR, along with IPR2025-00993, occurred on this date.

Outcome:

The IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,621,360 (IPR2025-00994) was "Not Instituted - Procedural" by the PTAB on 2025-11-20. This decision means that the PTAB declined to proceed with the inter partes review of the patent. The specific procedural grounds for the denial are not fully detailed in the provided search results but likely relate to the PTAB's discretionary denial policies, which were undergoing significant changes in 2025. These changes included an expanded set of factors for discretionary denials, often considering parallel district court litigation and the "settled expectations" of the parties, with the Director now personally handling institution determinations in many cases and rarely instituting petitions under the new process in Q4 2025.

The parallel district court litigation (2:24-cv-00854) remains active, with pre-trial motions filed in May 2026. The denial of institution at the PTAB means that the validity challenge for U.S. Patent No. 11,621,360 will proceed in the district court litigation.

Based on publicly available information, the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s), Samsung Semiconductor Inc. et al., in IPR2025-00994 is Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. While direct counsel information specifically for IPR2025-00994 was not immediately accessible through broad web searches of PTAB filings, the same Samsung entities are represented by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP in a parallel district court patent infringement case filed by W&Wsens Devices Inc. against Samsung, identified as 2:24-cv-00854 in the Eastern District of Texas. Given the close relationship between the IPRs and the district court litigation, it is highly probable that the same firm handles these related matters for Samsung.

Attorneys from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, who are listed as representing Samsung entities in the parallel district court case and are likely involved in the related IPRs, include:

• Parmanand K. Sharma - (Role not specified for this specific IPR, but generally represents Samsung entities).
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. Office locations include Washington, DC; Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA; London; Munich; Palo Alto, CA; Reston, VA; Seoul; Shanghai; Taipei; Tokyo.
  • Note: Finnegan is a leading IP law firm with comprehensive experience across various technologies.
• Min Yang - (Role not specified for this specific IPR, but generally represents Samsung entities).
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. Office locations include Washington, DC; Atlanta, GA; Boston, MA; London; Munich; Palo Alto, CA; Reston, VA; Seoul; Shanghai; Taipei; Tokyo.
• Gerald F. Ivey - (Role not specified for this specific IPR, but generally represents Samsung entities).
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC.
• Charles H. Suh - (Role not specified for this specific IPR, but generally represents Samsung entities).
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA.
• Benjamin R. Schlesinger - (Role not specified for this specific IPR, but generally represents Samsung entities).
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Atlanta, GA.
• Christina Ji-Hye Yang - (Role not specified for this specific IPR, but generally represents Samsung entities).
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
• Daniel F. Roland - (Role not specified for this specific IPR, but generally represents Samsung entities).
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
• Michael Joseph Aragon - (Role not specified for this specific IPR, but generally represents Samsung entities).
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
• Jinwoo Kim - (Role not specified for this specific IPR, but generally represents Samsung entities).
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
• Kai Rajan - (Role not specified for this specific IPR, but generally represents Samsung entities).
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC.

It is important to note that without direct access to the Power of Attorney or other mandatory notices filed within IPR2025-00994 on the PTAB's public docket, the specific "lead counsel" and "back-up counsel" designations for this IPR cannot be definitively stated. The information above is inferred from their representation of the same Samsung entities in directly related proceedings.

W&W Sens Devices Inc. is represented by counsel from Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP and Capshaw DeRieux LLP in the parallel district court litigation (Case No. 2:24-cv-00854). It is highly probable that the same counsel represented W&W Sens Devices Inc. in the IPR proceeding (IPR2025-00994) given the related nature of the cases.

Here is the identified counsel:

Lead Counsel

• Aaron Frankel (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Note: Served W&W Sens Devices Inc.'s infringement contentions in the district court case.

Local Counsel

• Melissa Smith (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP
  • Office Location: Marshall, TX
  • Note: Received electronic service of W&W Sens Devices Inc.'s infringement contentions in the district court case, indicating local counsel representation.

It is important to note that while the provided searches confirm this counsel for the related district court case, explicit docket entries naming counsel for W&W Sens Devices Inc. specifically in IPR2025-00994 were not directly accessible through the performed searches. However, the consistent practice is for the same legal teams to handle both the district court litigation and any related IPR proceedings.