Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

The patent infringement lawsuit "Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al." was filed by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc., a South Korea-based independent research and development (R&D) lab focused on wireless communications and multimedia technology. Wilus describes itself as a "leading independent R&D lab" with a track record of contributions to standards bodies such as 3GPP (for LTE and 5G), IEEE 802.11 (for Wi-Fi 6, 7), and MPEG. Wilus also participates in various patent pools, including Avanci's 4G and 5G pools, and Sisvel's Wi-Fi 6 and 5G Multimode patent pools, where it acts as a licensor. The defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its American subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., both major global electronics manufacturers.

The core of the dispute centers on allegations that Samsung's Wi-Fi enabled products, such as laptops and other devices compliant with the Wi-Fi 6 (IEEE 802.11ax) standard, infringe upon Wilus's patents. The specific patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent 11,116,035. While a detailed technical sketch of the '035 patent is not immediately available in the search results, it generally relates to wireless communication methods and terminals, consistent with Wilus's portfolio in Wi-Fi 6 standard-essential patents (SEPs). Wilus has asserted this patent as a standard-essential patent, meaning it is considered necessary to implement the Wi-Fi 6 standard.

The case is currently open and is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent plaintiffs, including non-practicing entities (NPEs), due to its plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, accelerated trial schedules, and a reputation for juries that are perceived to be favorable to patentees. This case is notable as part of a broader pattern of Wilus asserting its Wi-Fi 6 SEPs against major technology companies. Wilus launched its first U.S. litigation in September 2024, filing similar suits against HP and ASUSTek (Askey Computer) alongside Samsung. The company has actively sought to license its Wi-Fi 6 portfolio, with some companies like Lenovo and HP taking licenses through the Sisvel Wi-Fi 6 patent pool or bilateral agreements. Samsung has filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions on the asserted patents; however, the court denied Samsung's motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the IPR outcomes, indicating that final written decisions in the IPRs are not expected until after the trial. This indicates an ongoing effort by Wilus to monetize its Wi-Fi 6 patent portfolio, with potential industry impact on the licensing landscape for Wi-Fi 6 technology.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc., a South Korea-based independent research and development (R&D) lab, filed this patent infringement claim against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., both global electronics manufacturing giants. Wilus positions itself as a key contributor to wireless communication and multimedia standards, including Wi-Fi 6 (IEEE 802.11ax), and is a licensor in various patent pools, such as Sisvel's Wi-Fi 6 pool. The defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., are accused of infringing Wilus's patents through their Wi-Fi enabled products, including laptops and other devices that comply with the Wi-Fi 6 standard.

The specific patent at issue is U.S. Patent 11,116,035. While a detailed technical description for this specific patent is not readily available, it generally pertains to wireless communication methods and terminals, aligning with Wilus's focus on Wi-Fi 6 standard-essential patents (SEPs). Wilus asserts that the patent is essential to the Wi-Fi 6 standard, a claim central to its licensing and litigation strategy.

The litigation is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is frequently chosen by patent plaintiffs, including non-practicing entities, due to its historical reputation for plaintiff-favorable procedural rules, expedited trial schedules, and a perceived inclination of juries to rule for patentees. The case is part of Wilus's broader strategy to enforce its Wi-Fi 6 patent portfolio, having initiated similar lawsuits against other major tech companies like HP and ASUSTek (Askey Computer) concurrently. Samsung has challenged the asserted patents through inter partes review (IPR) petitions at the USPTO, but the district court denied Samsung's motion to stay the proceedings, indicating that the IPR final written decisions are not anticipated before the trial concludes. This highlights the ongoing efforts by Wilus to secure licensing agreements for its Wi-Fi 6 SEPs, which could have significant implications for manufacturers of Wi-Fi 6 compliant devices.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00765, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on September 20, 2024, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,116,035, among others. The case is currently active and is being presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-09-20: Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. 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. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,129,163, 11,700,597, 11,116,035, and 11,516,879, with the accused products being Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) enabled devices.
• 2024-10-02: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to file their answer or otherwise respond to the complaint and for a waiver of foreign service requirement.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2024-10-22: An attorney appearance was noticed by Andrea Leigh Fair on behalf of Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
• 2024-10-23: Case No. 2:24-cv-00765 was consolidated for all pretrial issues with lead case No. 2:24-cv-00752 and several other member cases (2:24-cv-00746, 2:24-cv-00753, 2:24-cv-00764, 2:24-cv-00766). The consolidation order stipulated that all future filings for these cases should be made in the lead case, although individual cases remain active for trial.
• 2025-09-12: A status conference was held before Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2025-12-23: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed an opposed motion to stay proceedings pending Inter Partes Review (IPR).
• 2026-03-06: Wilus filed a motion for a permanent standard-essential patent (SEP) injunction against ASUS subsidiary Askey, arguing that implementers like Samsung and Askey should not be entitled to FRAND (or RAND) terms due to alleged "bad-faith" negotiation tactics. Samsung is opposing this motion.
• 2026-04-23: The Court denied Samsung's motion to stay proceedings pending Inter Partes Review. The Court noted that Samsung filed the IPRs at least seven months after the litigation commenced, and the case had progressed to an advanced stage, with discovery completed, claim construction briefed and argued, and dispositive motions filed. The Court also found that Wilus would be prejudiced by a delay in recovering monetary damages.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Samsung filed IPR petitions on all asserted claims for the patents involved in the consolidated cases. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied Wilus's requests for discretionary denial of institution and subsequently instituted IPRs against all claims asserted against Samsung.
• While the specific IPR status for patent 11,116,035 is not explicitly detailed in the search results, it is part of the group of patents for which Samsung filed IPR petitions. Other patents in the consolidated cases, such as 11,129,163, are subject to IPR proceedings (e.g., IPR2025-00935).
• Unified Patents filed two ex parte reexamination proceedings against Wilus's U.S. Patent 10,820,233 and U.S. Patent 10,931,396 on August 29, 2025, which were asserted against Askey Computer Corporation. Additionally, U.S. Patent 11,664,926, which is related to the '396 patent, has been asserted against Samsung, HP Inc., and Askey.

Present Posture:
The case is currently active and proceeding toward trial, as evidenced by the denial of the motion to stay and ongoing pre-trial motions regarding FRAND obligations. HP Inc., initially a defendant in related consolidated cases, settled its dispute by taking a Sisvel WiFi 6 patent pool license on November 18, 2025.## Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00765, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case, which involves U.S. Patent No. 11,116,035 among other patents related to Wi-Fi 6 technology, is currently active and presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Below is a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-09-20: Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,129,163, 11,700,597, 11,116,035, and 11,516,879, specifically targeting Samsung's Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) enabled devices.
• 2024-10-02: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. filed an unopposed motion requesting an extension of time to respond to the complaint and a waiver of foreign service requirements.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2024-10-23: The Court issued a consolidation order, grouping case 2:24-cv-00765 with several other related cases (including 2:24-cv-00746, 2:24-cv-00752 as the lead case, 2:24-cv-00753, 2:24-cv-00764, and 2:24-cv-00766) for all pretrial proceedings. Individual cases, however, remain active for trial.
• 2025-12-23: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO.
• 2026-03-06: Wilus filed a motion for a permanent standard-essential patent (SEP) injunction against ASUS subsidiary Askey, also a defendant in a consolidated case. Wilus argued that Samsung and Askey should not be entitled to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing terms due to alleged bad-faith negotiation tactics. Samsung is actively opposing this motion.
• 2026-04-23: The District Court denied Samsung's motion to stay proceedings pending IPR. The Court highlighted that Samsung had filed its IPR petitions at least seven months after the litigation began, and the case had already advanced significantly, with discovery completed, claim construction briefed and argued, and dispositive motions filed. The Court also determined that Wilus would face prejudice from a delay in recovering monetary damages.

3. Claim Construction (Markman):

• The court's denial of the motion to stay on April 23, 2026, explicitly stated that claim construction had been "briefed and argued," indicating that the Markman process has occurred or is in an advanced stage. No specific outcomes or dates for the Markman hearing itself were detailed in the available search results.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• As of the denial of the motion to stay on April 23, 2026, discovery in the consolidated cases had been completed.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Samsung filed IPR petitions challenging all asserted claims across the patents involved in the consolidated lawsuits. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeded to institute IPRs against all claims asserted against Samsung, after denying Wilus's requests for discretionary denial of institution.
• While IPR filings for specific patent 11,116,035 were not explicitly detailed, it is part of the group of patents for which Samsung sought IPRs. For instance, related patent 11,129,163 is subject to IPR2025-00935.
• On August 29, 2025, Unified Patents initiated two ex parte reexamination proceedings against Wilus's U.S. Patent 10,820,233 and U.S. Patent 10,931,396, which were asserted against Askey Computer Corporation. Additionally, U.S. Patent 11,664,926, related to the '396 patent, has been asserted against Samsung, HP Inc., and Askey.

6. Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• The case remains active in the Eastern District of Texas. The denial of the motion to stay indicates that the litigation is progressing toward trial.
• One of the initial defendants in a related consolidated case, HP Inc., has settled its dispute by entering into a Sisvel WiFi 6 patent pool license as of November 18, 2025.
• Wilus also filed a new patent case against TP-Link Corporation PTE Limited on April 10, 2026, indicating ongoing enforcement of its patent portfolio.

Here is the counsel of record representing Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. in Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:24-cv-00765):

Plaintiff's Counsel

• Name: William P. Ramey III

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Ramey LLP
  • Office Location: Houston, Texas
  • Experience Note: Founding partner with extensive experience in obtaining, enforcing, and licensing intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. He has served as first chair in numerous trials and has been recognized on the Super Lawyers list for Intellectual Property Litigation for consecutive years from 2014-2024.

• Name: Andrea Leigh Fair

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC)
  • Office Location: Longview, Texas
  • Experience Note: Recognized for excellence in intellectual property litigation, having secured significant jury verdicts in patent infringement cases. Her firm, Miller Fair Henry (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill), is known for high-stakes IP trials and frequently assists in complex cases before Eastern District of Texas juries. She is a name partner at Miller Fair Henry.

The defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., are represented by a team of attorneys from various firms, including in-house counsel.

Here is the identified counsel of record for the defendants:

• Thomas Howard Reger, II (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Dallas office)
  • Note: Fish & Richardson is a prominent intellectual property law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation.

• Aleksandr Gelberg (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (San Diego office)

• Payal Patel (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.

• James Young (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Bailey Kathleen Benedict (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Damien Thomas (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Washington D.C. office)

• Bryan James Cannon (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Ralph A Phillips (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Washington D.C. office)

• Rodeen Talebi (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Dallas office)

• Michael J McKeon (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Washington D.C. office)

• Ruffin B Cordell (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Washington D.C. office)

• Melissa Richards Smith (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP
  • Note: Likely serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, a common practice for firms outside the district.

In-house counsel at Samsung involved in coordinating patent litigation, which may include this case, are also identifiable:

• Matthew Bathon (Principal Legal Counsel)

  • Company: Samsung Electronics
  • Note: Coordinates Samsung's ITC and district court dockets and has prior experience litigating Section 337 investigations before the ITC and IP disputes in district courts as a partner at Steptoe LLP.

• Tim Jezek (Principal Legal Counsel)

  • Company: Samsung Electronics America
  • Note: Focuses on IP litigation and related policy issues, with over two decades of litigation and intellectual property counseling experience.

• Phillip Lee (Principal Legal Counsel)

  • Company: Samsung Electronics US IP Center
  • Note: A veteran litigator with experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing, managing a docket of patent cases with outside counsel.