W&Wsens Devices Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

W&Wsens Devices Inc. (W&Wsens) has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., along with its U.S. affiliates Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC. W&Wsens Devices Inc. is described as a developer of semiconductor-based optical sensors specializing in high-performance thin silicon photosensors that leverage lightwave trapping technology through microholes to enhance speed and sensitivity in near-infrared wavelengths. While it develops its own technology and holds a portfolio of patents, some sources also characterize it as an inventor-controlled entity and a patent asserter (PAE). Samsung is a global technology conglomerate manufacturing a wide range of consumer and industrial electronics, including smartphones, tablets, televisions, semiconductors, and memory chips.

The core of the dispute centers on Samsung's accused products, specifically their CMOS (Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor) image sensors and Time-of-Flight (ToF) CMOS image sensors, which are integrated into various Samsung electronic devices such as computers, digital cameras, smartphones, and tablets. W&Wsens alleges that these products infringe U.S. Patent No. 11,621,360, among others. Patent 11,621,360 generally pertains to semiconductor photodetectors designed to improve absorption efficiency in thin silicon through the use of specifically formed holes or microstructures in the light-receiving surfaces.

The case is being heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is historically significant for patent litigation, often favored by plaintiffs due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, accelerated trial schedules, and a jury pool sometimes perceived as more sympathetic to patent owners. While the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017 aimed to restrict patent venue to a defendant's state of incorporation or where they have a regular and established place of business, the Eastern District of Texas has seen new litigation strategies, such as suing foreign affiliates, to maintain venue. The case is notable for the ongoing assertion of semiconductor technology patents by W&Wsens, an entity that some characterize as an NPE, against a major technology defendant like Samsung, reflecting a common pattern in patent litigation in this district. The court has already denied Samsung's motions to stay pending PTAB review and to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, indicating its intent to proceed with the litigation in its current forum. Samsung was granted leave to amend its invalidity contentions, a procedural development that allows them to introduce new evidence challenging the priority date of the asserted patents.W&Wsens Devices Inc. (W&Wsens) has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and its U.S. affiliates, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC. W&Wsens Devices Inc. is a technology company specializing in semiconductor-based optical sensors, developing high-performance thin silicon photosensors that utilize lightwave trapping technology with microholes to enhance speed and sensitivity, particularly in near-infrared wavelengths. While it engages in the development of its own technology and holds numerous patents, some reports categorize W&Wsens as an inventor-controlled patent asserter or patent assertion entity (PAE). Samsung, conversely, is a multinational giant in consumer and industrial electronics, known for manufacturing a wide array of products including smartphones, tablets, televisions, and critical electronic components such as semiconductors and memory chips.

The alleged infringement in this case targets Samsung's CMOS (Complementary Metal-Oxide Semiconductor) image sensors and Time-of-Flight (ToF) CMOS image sensors, which are incorporated into various Samsung products like computers, digital cameras, smartphones, and tablets. The central patent asserted is U.S. Patent No. 11,621,360, which generally describes semiconductor photodetector devices featuring one or more deliberately formed holes or microstructures on their light-receiving surfaces to improve the absorption efficiency within thin silicon.

This patent infringement litigation is proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent cases, often chosen by plaintiffs for its reputation of expeditious trial schedules, local rules favoring patent holders, and a jury pool sometimes perceived as more plaintiff-friendly. Despite the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision, which aimed to narrow patent venue options, the Eastern District of Texas has seen plaintiffs employ strategies, such as suing foreign corporate entities, to maintain jurisdiction. The case is notable as it exemplifies the continued assertion of semiconductor technology patents by a specialized entity against a major industry player in a historically significant patent litigation forum. The court has already rejected Samsung's attempts to stay the case pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB and to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. Additionally, Samsung has been granted leave to amend its invalidity contentions, allowing for the introduction of new arguments challenging the priority date of the asserted patents.

W&Wsens Devices Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. - Key Legal Developments

The patent infringement litigation, W&Wsens Devices Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00854-JRG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, remains active as of May 19, 2026, with several significant pre-trial developments and scheduled future events. The lawsuit involves patent 11621360 and other related patents.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:
The original complaint filing date for this case is not explicitly available in the provided search results. However, W&Wsens Devices Inc. filed its Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on April 16, 2025 (Dkt. No. 52). This complaint alleges infringement of six patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 12,243,948, 12,087,871, 11,621,360, 10,468,543, 10,446,700, and 9,525,084.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Transfer Venue: Samsung's renewed motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Dkt. No. 58) was denied by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on November 25, 2025.
• Motion to Stay Pending IPR/PGR: Samsung filed a motion to stay the case pending inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) for the asserted patents (Dkt. No. 83). This motion was denied without prejudice on November 3, 2025, as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had not yet instituted review for any of the asserted patents at that time.
• Motion to Amend Invalidity Contentions: Samsung's motion to amend its invalidity contentions (Dkt. No. 100) was granted on February 20, 2026. These amended contentions sought to include new evidence regarding the appropriate priority date for certain asserted claims, including patent 11,621,360, contending a priority date almost a decade later than the plaintiff's alleged May 22, 2013, date.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
A Markman hearing in this case is scheduled for February 3, 2026. An order from February 5, 2025, set this date as part of the case's docket control.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:
Beyond the general progression of discovery, a notable development includes the court granting Samsung leave to amend its invalidity contentions on February 20, 2026. This indicates ongoing adjustments to legal theories and evidence during the discovery phase. Samsung had initially served its invalidity contentions on May 30, 2025.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
As of the current date, the case has not proceeded to trial. Jury selection is scheduled for August 3, 2026.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
The case remains active in the Eastern District of Texas. No settlement, dismissal, or final judgment has been entered.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
Samsung has initiated parallel proceedings at the PTAB, as evidenced by its motion to stay the district court litigation pending IPR/PGR. While the motion to stay was denied in November 2025 due to lack of an institution decision, an IPR proceeding, IPR2025-00994 (Samsung v. W&Wsens), has been identified as related to this litigation. The status and outcome of IPR2025-00994 or any other IPRs specifically pertaining to patent 11621360 could not be definitively determined from the public search results at this time.

Here is the counsel of record representing W&Wsens Devices Inc. in W&Wsens Devices Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.:

• Christopher V. Goodpastor

  • Role: Partner (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: DiNovo Price LLP
  • Office Location: Austin, Texas
  • Relevant Experience: A trial lawyer specializing in patent and antitrust litigation, Mr. Goodpastor has secured a jury verdict of infringement against Samsung for smartphone data transfer patents and obtained over $40 million in royalties from litigation involving Bluetooth® wireless communication protocols. He is also recognized as a top-performing attorney representing patent owners in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

• Eric J. Enger

  • Role: Partner (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP
  • Office Location: Houston, Texas
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Enger focuses on patent litigation and post-grant challenges, having prosecuted and defended high-tech companies in multi-patent lawsuits, including a case against Samsung involving Bluetooth technology which resulted in a significant damages award. He has been recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Litigation - Intellectual Property and Litigation - Patent.

• Michael E. Jones

  • Role: Attorney (Counsel)
  • Firm: Potter Minton, P.C.
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Jones tries lawsuits in state and federal courts with an emphasis on intellectual property, oil and gas, and commercial litigation. His experience includes a $41 million judgment for a plaintiff in a patent infringement case and numerous defense verdicts in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas. He has been designated a "Super Lawyer" for multiple years.

• Wesley Hill

  • Role: Partner (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC)
  • Office Location: Longview, Texas
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Hill is an experienced East Texas trial lawyer in patent infringement and intellectual property, with a track record of multi-million dollar plaintiff's verdicts. His firm, Ward, Smith & Hill (now Miller Fair Henry), has a strong reputation in the Eastern District of Texas for high-stakes intellectual property trials. As of October 1, 2024, the firm transitioned to Miller Fair Henry PLLC, with Mr. Hill ending his full-time trial practice but potentially remaining involved in some capacity with the continuing firm.

• Johnny Ward

  • Role: Partner (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC)
  • Office Location: Longview, Texas
  • Relevant Experience: Mr. Ward is a distinguished trial attorney known for successfully trying numerous complex cases to verdict, including patent infringement against companies like Apple and Samsung. His firm, Ward, Smith & Hill (now Miller Fair Henry), has been recognized for its successful trial litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. As of October 1, 2024, the firm transitioned to Miller Fair Henry PLLC, and Mr. Ward ended his full-time trial practice.

• T. John Ward

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC)
  • Office Location: Longview, Texas
  • Relevant Experience: A former United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Ward presided over hundreds of patent cases and numerous complex commercial cases, making Marshall a significant patent litigation venue. He now focuses on patent and other complex commercial cases, as well as mediation and arbitration. He remains Of Counsel with the firm following its transition.

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant(s), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., in the patent infringement case W&Wsens Devices Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00854-JRG in the Eastern District of Texas:

Lead Counsel (tentative, based on prevalence in major patent cases for Samsung):

• Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP
  • Andrew William Stinson
    • Role: Lead Counsel (assumed, based on notice of appearance for multiple Samsung entities).
    • Firm Location: Unspecified from direct search, but Kirkland & Ellis has offices in Dallas, TX.
    • Experience Note: Andrew William Stinson has filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.. Kirkland & Ellis is a global law firm with a substantial IP litigation practice, regularly acting as trusted counsel in complex IP challenges.
  • Emily Sheffield
    • Role: Associate Counsel
    • Firm Location: Dallas, Texas
    • Experience Note: Ms. Sheffield is an associate focusing on intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement and trade secret litigation in U.S. Federal Courts and the USPTO. Her background in mechanical engineering aids her understanding of complex technology.

Local Counsel:

• Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP
  • Melissa Richards Smith
    • Role: Partner, Local Counsel
    • Firm Location: Marshall, Texas
    • Experience Note: Ms. Smith has served as local or trial counsel in over a thousand intellectual property disputes, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in various venues, including the Eastern District of Texas.

In-House Counsel (Samsung):

• Tim Jezek
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics America
  • Firm Location: N/A (in-house)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Jezek focuses on IP litigation and related policy issues, with over two decades of litigation and intellectual property counseling experience.
• Phillip Lee
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics US IP Center
  • Firm Location: N/A (in-house)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Lee is a veteran litigator with substantial experience in patent litigation, patent prosecution, and licensing, having participated in every stage of a patent case across various technologies.
• Matthew Bathon
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics
  • Firm Location: N/A (in-house)
  • Experience Note: Mr. Bathon's responsibilities include coordinating Samsung's ITC and district court dockets, and he has prior experience as a partner at Steptoe LLP, focusing on Section 337 investigations before the ITC and IP disputes in district courts.

While PacerMonitor lists numerous attorneys from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, and some documents mention them as counsel of record for Defendants, the specific notice of appearance for Andrew William Stinson from Kirkland & Ellis and the consistent presence of Gillam & Smith as local counsel in Eastern District of Texas cases suggest these are key representatives for Samsung in this matter.