Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. [Unknown Defendant]

This patent infringement litigation, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., et al., case number 2:24-cv-00765, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on September 13, 2024. The plaintiff, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc., is a South Korea-based, employee-owned research and development (R&D) company. Wilus specializes in wireless communications and multimedia technology, actively contributing to the development of key global standards such as 3GPP, IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi), and MPEG. While engaged in R&D, Wilus is also characterized as a Patent Assertion Entity (NPE), indicating a strategy that includes licensing its extensive patent portfolio and enforcing its intellectual property rights through litigation when licensing negotiations are unsuccessful. The defendant in this case is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., along with Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung"), a global technology conglomerate known for manufacturing a wide array of electronic devices.

The lawsuit alleges that Samsung has infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,516,879, among others, with its Wi-Fi 6 (802.11ax) enabled devices. Specifically, the asserted patents, including 11,516,879, relate to the "MAC" or "medium access control layer" of wireless communications technology, crucial for Wi-Fi 6 wireless local area networks (WLANs). The accused products are Wi-Fi 6 enabled devices used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by Samsung in the United States. The case is currently active in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, and has been assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is particularly notable in patent litigation due to its reputation for being plaintiff-friendly, often chosen by NPEs for its local rules, judges, and juries, which historically have shown a higher success rate for plaintiffs and substantial damages awards.

This case is significant as it highlights Wilus's strategy to monetize its standard-essential patents (SEPs) related to Wi-Fi 6 technology. Wilus has actively participated in the IEEE 802.11ax standardization process and has previously secured amicable Wi-Fi 6 licensing deals with other major companies like Lenovo and LG Electronics. It also makes its portfolio available through the Sisvel Wi-Fi 6 patent pool, demonstrating a commitment to licensing on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) terms. The litigation against Samsung, following similar actions against companies like ASUS in other jurisdictions for Wi-Fi 6 patent infringement, underscores Wilus's resolve to protect its investments in R&D and enforce its IP rights when bilateral negotiations reach an impasse.

This patent infringement litigation, 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, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint, Answer, Counterclaims):

• Complaint: Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. on September 20, 2024, asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,516,879. The complaint alleges willful infringement of wireless communications technology patents with Wi-Fi enabled laptops and other devices.
• Summons Issued: Summons were issued to both Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., LTD.
• Extension of Time to Respond: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to file an answer, move, or otherwise respond to the plaintiff's complaint, along with a waiver of foreign service requirement.

2. Consolidation of Cases:
The case 2:24-cv-00765 was subsequently consolidated for all pretrial issues with a lead case, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc., v. HP Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00752, in the Eastern District of Texas. This consolidation order was issued on October 23, 2024. This means that many procedural and substantive developments, such as scheduling, discovery, and claim construction, are likely to be managed under the lead case docket and apply to 2:24-cv-00765 as a member case. Another related case, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc., v. HP Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00764, was also filed on September 20, 2024, involving similar allegations against HP Inc.

3. Pre-trial motions of substance — motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, summary judgment:
As of the current date, May 18, 2026, specific public docket entries detailing substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR are not readily available in the provided search results for case 2:24-cv-00765, beyond Samsung's initial request for an extension to respond to the complaint. Given the consolidation, such motions might be filed and addressed within the lead case (2:24-cv-00752).

4. Claim construction (Markman) outcomes if the case reached that stage:
There are no search results specifically detailing a Markman hearing or claim construction order for patent 11,516,879 in case 2:24-cv-00765 or its consolidated lead case (2:24-cv-00752). Given the relatively recent filing date (September 2024) and the consolidation, claim construction proceedings may be ongoing or not yet scheduled.

5. Discovery milestones with strategic significance:
No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly reported or identified in the search results for this case.

6. Trial events, verdict (if any), and post-trial motions (JMOL, new trial, fees):
The case is still in its active litigation phase, and as such, no trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred.

7. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal — the final disposition or the present posture if active:
The case is currently in active litigation. It remains consolidated for pretrial issues under lead case 2:24-cv-00752.

8. Any parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on the asserted patents and their effect on the litigation:
A search of the USPTO PTAB database for patent 11,516,879 did not immediately yield specific Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings. While it is common for defendants in patent infringement cases to file IPR petitions, no such proceedings are explicitly reported in the provided results concerning this patent and the named parties. Therefore, there has been no reported effect of PTAB proceedings on the litigation thus far.

The plaintiff, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc., is represented by a team of attorneys from Russ August & Kabat, serving as lead counsel, and Miller Fair Henry PLLC, providing local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.

The counsel of record for the plaintiff includes:

• Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Lead Counsel (for Patent Owner in IPR2025-00935, corresponding to this case).
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation, particularly patent litigation, and is listed as lead counsel for Wilus in a related Inter Partes Review proceeding at the PTAB.

• Marc A. Fenster

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience Note: An attorney from the lead counsel firm, actively appearing for the plaintiff in related cases.

• Jacob Buczko

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience Note: An attorney from the lead counsel firm, actively appearing for the plaintiff in related cases.

• Dale Chang

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience Note: An attorney from the lead counsel firm, actively appearing for the plaintiff in related cases.

• Neil Alan Rubin

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience Note: An attorney from the lead counsel firm, actively appearing for the plaintiff in related cases.

• Jonathan Ma

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience Note: An attorney from the lead counsel firm, actively appearing for the plaintiff in related cases.

• Andrea Leigh Fair

  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. in this case (2:24-cv-00765) on October 22, 2024, indicating a local counsel role for the Eastern District of Texas.

The defendants in this patent infringement case are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. They are represented by attorneys from Fish & Richardson P.C. and Gillam & Smith, LLP.

The counsel of record representing the defendant(s), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., are:

From Fish & Richardson P.C.:

• Thomas Howard Reger, II (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas
  • Note: Thomas Reger is a Principal at Fish & Richardson and focuses on patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Rodeen Talebi (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas
  • Note: Rodeen Talebi is an Associate at Fish & Richardson with experience in patent litigation.

• Aleksandr Gelberg (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: San Diego, California
  • Note: Aleksandr Gelberg is a Principal at Fish & Richardson, focusing on patent litigation across various technologies.

• Payal Patel (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: [Not specified in snippets, but firm has multiple offices]
  • Note: Payal Patel is a Principal at Fish & Richardson, specializing in intellectual property litigation.

• James Young (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: [Not specified in snippets, but firm has multiple offices]
  • Note: James Young is a Principal at Fish & Richardson, with experience in patent litigation.

• Bailey Kathleen Benedict (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: [Not specified in snippets, but firm has multiple offices]
  • Note: Bailey Benedict is an Associate at Fish & Richardson, focusing on intellectual property and patent litigation.

• Damien Thomas (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Washington D.C.
  • Note: Damien Thomas is a Principal at Fish & Richardson, representing clients in patent disputes.

• Bryan James Cannon (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: [Not specified in snippets, but firm has multiple offices]
  • Note: Bryan Cannon is a Principal at Fish & Richardson and handles complex patent litigation.

• Ralph A Phillips (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Washington D.C.
  • Note: Ralph Phillips is a Principal at Fish & Richardson, focusing on patent and intellectual property litigation.

• Michael J McKeon (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Washington D.C.
  • Note: Michael McKeon is a Principal at Fish & Richardson, representing clients in patent litigation and other intellectual property matters.

• Ruffin B Cordell (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: Washington D.C.
  • Note: Ruffin Cordell is a Principal at Fish & Richardson and a seasoned patent litigator, known for his work in the Eastern District of Texas.

• John-Paul Robert Fryckman (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Office Location: [Not specified in snippets, but firm has multiple offices]
  • Note: John-Paul Fryckman is a Principal at Fish & Richardson with experience in patent litigation.

From Gillam & Smith, LLP:

• Melissa Richards Smith (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP
  • Office Location: Marshall, Texas
  • Note: Melissa Smith is a founding partner of Gillam & Smith, LLP, and frequently serves as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.