Samsung loses patent lawsuit

[Cmaier]

I hear that Mayer Brown is a pretty good law firm…



Samsung Owes $112M To Maxell In Patent Fight, Jury Says
By Adam Lidgett · Listen to article

Law360 (May 28, 2025, 8:22 PM EDT) -- A federal jury in Texas said Wednesday that Samsung owes about $111.7 million after finding it infringed a series of patents covering functions in personal electronic devices owned by Maxell Ltd.

Jurors returned a verdict form in favor of Maxell on three smart device patents, finding that the company showed it was entitled to the $111.7 million, based on a running royalty through trial instead of as a lump sum. The jury said Maxell showed that Samsung infringed the patents and that the infringement was willful.

The jury also found that Samsung couldn't prove claims in two of the patents were invalid.

…

The three patents related to ways to unlock devices like smartphones, more easily find recordings on a device, and manage digital data, according to the suit.
…

Last month, Maxell filed another suit against Samsung alleging it infringed other patents relating to smart devices. The patents in that suit cover, among other things, "home networking technology" that includes everything from smartphones, tablets, laptops, watches, refrigerators, washers and dryers, ovens, and vacuums.

…

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,982,086; 10,176,848; and 11,017,815.

Maxell is represented by … Mayer Brown LLP.

Samsung is represented by …DLA Piper ….

 

[dada_dave]

I hear that Mayer Brown is a pretty good law firm…

Yeah but there’s this one guy there who’s a bit dodgy

 

[Cmaier]

Yeah but there’s this one guy there who’s a bit dodgy

That’s my slogan. “The lawyer who’s dodgy…for you!”

 

[dada_dave]

That’s my slogan. “The lawyer who’s dodgy…for you!”

Better Call Cliff!

BTW I was curious and this is probably a big question, but I see the patent system as fairly broken (and I'm hardly alone in this) but not being in it, I am wondering what your take on it is.

From what I can tell some of the problems are that there are too many patents and the patent office seems to almost rubber stamp all but the most blatantly stupid patents and lets the courts figure out which are actually defensible. I get that may be necessary in some instances where how valid the patent may be tricky and it's better for it to be figured out post-approval, but there have been patents were even I as a non-lawyer was shocked that was ever approved and the sheer number of patents allows certain kinds of companies to do nothing but "patent trolling". At the same time, one also sees large corporations just trying to roll over smaller ones any chance they get and requiring every patent holder to actually make a product with said patent doesn't seem right or fair to people who invented something but may not have the resources to bring that invention to fruition. And selling a patent to someone who at least has the resources to defend ensures they get something. And I am not sure how to tackle both sets of problems simultaneously .

Three improvements that come to mind:

1) A more robust, better funded patent office that increases the rate of rejection.

2) Laws limiting judge/district shopping (a good one for more than just patents)

3) Something like anti-SLAPP laws but for patents to expedite court cases so larger companies can't use how long court cases take to simply outlast and bury their opponents in legal fees.

There is also the case of software patents which also have the more philosophical issue of where do natural mathematical formulae, which are not patentable, end and human derived algorithms and software begin, but I'm not including that and I know there is a lot of legal work around where that cutoff should be even if I'm not personally familiar with how that is adjudicated.

What else could be done to improve the system? (while recognizing that no system is perfect and any system will be gamed by those rich and powerful enough to it) am I way off base with any of the above?

 

[Cmaier]

Better Call Cliff!

BTW I was curious and this is probably a big question, but I see the patent system as fairly broken (and I'm hardly alone in this) but not being in it, I am wondering what your take on it is.

From what I can tell some of the problems are that there are too many patents and the patent office seems to almost rubber stamp all but the most blatantly stupid patents and lets the courts figure out which are actually defensible. I get that may be necessary in some instances where how valid the patent may be tricky and it's better for it to be figured out post-approval, but there have been patents were even I as a non-lawyer was shocked that was ever approved and the sheer number of patents allows certain kinds of companies to do nothing but "patent trolling". At the same time, one also sees large corporations just trying to roll over smaller ones any chance they get and requiring every patent holder to actually make a product with said patent doesn't seem right or fair to people who invented something but may not have the resources to bring that invention to fruition. And selling a patent to someone who at least has the resources to defend ensures they get something. And I am not sure how to tackle both sets of problems simultaneously .

Three improvements that come to mind:

1) A more robust, better funded patent office that increases the rate of rejection.

2) Laws limiting judge/district shopping (a good one for more than just patents)

3) Something like anti-SLAPP laws but for patents to expedite court cases so larger companies can't use how long court cases take to simply outlast and bury their opponents in legal fees.

There is also the case of software patents which also have the more philosophical issue of where do natural mathematical formulae, which are not patentable, end and human derived algorithms and software begin, but I'm not including that and I know there is a lot of legal work around where that cutoff should be even if I'm not personally familiar with how that is adjudicated.

What else could be done to improve the system? (while recognizing that no system is perfect and any system will be gamed by those rich and powerful enough to it) am I way off base with any of the above?

I don’t find the patent system to be particularly broken. There are a handful of law firms who go around suing people in bad faith and extorting nuisance settlements - if they demand $50,000, big companies will pay rather than fight. But the vast majority of cases I see are legit, and most patents I run across don’t seem like the USPTO did a bad job in letting them issue. The big issue right now is that there are a lot of patents that were valid based on the law at the time they issued, but probably are invalid now - this is the “Alice” abstract idea line of cases. But Alice is fairly old law now, so before long most of those patents will have expired anyway.

As for judge/district shopping, that has not really been a thing for the last few years, do to case law that requires you to sue where the defendant is incorporated or has a permanent place-of-business. So, now, if you see cases in, say, eastern district of texas, it’s because the defendant actually is located there, or it’s a foreign company (so the other rules don’t work).

Not so sure what you’re getting at for (3). Large companies are at a disadvantage. Not an advantage. If a small entity sues a large company, they can bury the large company in expensive discovery demands, they don’t have to worry about a reciprocal patent lawsuit, etc. etc.

 

[dada_dave]

I don’t find the patent system to be particularly broken. There are a handful of law firms who go around suing people in bad faith and extorting nuisance settlements - if they demand $50,000, big companies will pay rather than fight. But the vast majority of cases I see are legit, and most patents I run across don’t seem like the USPTO did a bad job in letting them issue. The big issue right now is that there are a lot of patents that were valid based on the law at the time they issued, but probably are invalid now - this is the “Alice” abstract idea line of cases. But Alice is fairly old law now, so before long most of those patents will have expired anyway.

As for judge/district shopping, that has not really been a thing for the last few years, do to case law that requires you to sue where the defendant is incorporated or has a permanent place-of-business. So, now, if you see cases in, say, eastern district of texas, it’s because the defendant actually is located there, or it’s a foreign company (so the other rules don’t work).

Not so sure what you’re getting at for (3). Large companies are at a disadvantage. Not an advantage. If a small entity sues a large company, they can bury the large company in expensive discovery demands, they don’t have to worry about a reciprocal patent lawsuit, etc. etc.

Thanks, I was wondering about the perspective of someone who actually has experience here. My concern was in general I know that small companies generally have much fewer resources than larger ones and for most cases can be outlasted by the larger ones, but maybe for patents in particular due to the asymmetries that's not as big of an issue. However, either way it sounds like some sort of anti-SLAPP law might still be beneficial to weed out the nuisance/extortion settlement seekers? Would that even work? It's good to hear they (mostly) fixed the judge shopping issue (for patents).

 

[Cmaier]

Thanks, I was wondering about the perspective of someone who actually has experience here. My concern was in general I know small companies generally have many fewer resources than larger ones and for most cases can be outlasted than the larger ones, but maybe for patents in particular due to the asymmetries that's not as big of an issue. However, either way it sounds like some sort of anti-SLAPP law might still be beneficial to weed out the nuisance/extortion settlements? Would that even work? It's good to hear they (mostly) fixed the judge shopping issue (for patents).

All patent cases are in federal court, which is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). FRCP Rule 11 is what’s used to weed out truly terrible assertions - if invoked by the defendant, and proven, then typically the plaintiff ends up paying sanctions (such as legal fees for the defendant). Additionally, some of the worst offenders are sanctioned for other reasons. But it’s just not common. Generally there is at least an arguable basis to allege infringement, and there is a presumption that the patent is valid, so you go to court and fight it out.

As for large vs. small companies, remember that most patent lawsuits are “non practicing entities” (i.e. companies that hold patents and don’t do anything else) vs. companies (either large and small). Sometimes it’s large company vs. large company. But it’s rarely large company vs. small company. And if a large company is suing, there’s almost certainly a legitimate basis to sue.

As far as cost, smaller plaintiffs typically get financing for the lawsuit, or the law firms take them on contingency. Defendants are looking at a several million dollar bill if it goes all the way to trial. You could imagine a “loser pays legal fees” system, but that’s antithetical to the way the american legal system works, and would arguably be unfair to small plaintiffs, universities, etc.

 

[Yoused]

most patent lawsuits are “non practicing entities” … vs. companies

Why is this allowed? If you have a patent and have no evidence to indicate that you have been developing it and have not attempted to license it, what right should you have to enforce it? I submit that a patent that has been idle for over a year should be considered PD.

 

[dada_dave]

Why is this allowed? If you have a patent and have no evidence to indicate that you have been developing it and have not attempted to license it, what right should you have to enforce it? I submit that a patent that has been idle for over a year should be considered PD.

Not everyone has the resources to develop a patent into a product and if you were to make that a requirement, especially with a sunset clause, then it would give massive leverage to the Apples and Samsungs of the world. Basically the large corporations would become that much more powerful as they could hoover up patents for dirt cheap as universities and individual researchers couldn't hold on to them and there would be no patent holding firms to even provide any kind of competitive market. If you are making a product that utilizes a patent you are the one supposed to reach out to get a license unless you intend to fight that patent. A university or patent holding entity can't possibly know what you're developing or how.

 

[Yoused]

Basically the large corporations would become that much more powerful as they could hoover up patents for dirt cheap as universities and individual researchers couldn't hold on to them

Except, if what I said, that the sunset clause expires to PD (public domain) that would be incentive for corporations to negotiate for a patent or licence in order to obtain exclusive access to the IP. Once the sunset expires, the IP becomes available to anyone at no cost. All the holder would have to do to extend the patent would be to license it to one legitimate developer, or perhaps to negotiate an extension with the patent office.

I just want to see an end to patent trolling, and to situations like the jpeg fiasco ("oh look we found this old patent in a file cabinet of this company we bought, for something everybody is already doing everywhere").

 

[Cmaier]

Why is this allowed? If you have a patent and have no evidence to indicate that you have been developing it and have not attempted to license it, what right should you have to enforce it? I submit that a patent that has been idle for over a year should be considered PD.

It is allowed because it encourages innovation. It encourages research and development into inventions. In exchange for publishing all of the details of the invention, including the best mode of practicing it, you get a limited-time monopoly on using it (20 years from the date the application was first filed.) The alternative is that everyone just keeps everything a trade secret forever, or small entities, universities, etc. are less likely to put money into research because they have less likelihood of recouping the investment.

Note that a lot of patents being asserted by non-practicing entities were actually invented at big companies. They go out of business, or need cash, or whatever, and the patent rights are transferred to others.

This is also a strategy: remember what I said about retaliation? If, for example, HP were to sue Dell, Dell would countersue on its own patents. If, instead, HP sells the patents to AwesomePatentCo, Inc., and AwesomePatentCo sues Dell, HP is not a target. Sometimes HP might get a cut of any proceeds of the lawsuit, and other times not. But in either case HP got money for its inventions, and felt confident in investing in R&D in part because it knew it could monetize at least some percentage of the inventions one way or another at some point.

 

[dada_dave]

Except, if what I said, that the sunset clause expires to PD (public domain) that would be incentive for corporations to negotiate for a patent or licence in order to obtain exclusive access to the IP. Once the sunset expires, the IP becomes available to anyone at no cost. All the holder would have to do to extend the patent would be to license it to one legitimate developer, or perhaps to negotiate an extension with the patent office.

I just want to see an end to patent trolling, and to situations like the jpeg fiasco ("oh look we found this old patent in a file cabinet of this company we bought, for something everybody is already doing everywhere").

Nah most of the time, these corporations are fine with the patents they don't own going PD, they get to use them for free. And again that pushes universities and individuals to sell quickly or lose any chance of monetizing their research. I mean if you want to pair your idea with massive public funding increases to university and general research that be something (as well as probably other changes and unknown if the new system would be better), but @Cmaier is right that much of our current system relies on the ability to monetize research with patents. You can't just change this one thing or you risk breaking a huge percentage of our ability to conduct research (well that's already under threat from the current administration so it might be moot, but you get my point).

Also I think Cliff's point earlier to me is that the patent trolling and brokenness most of us are familiar with is the exception rather than the rule in his experience. Now I don't know if everyone who works in patents and law has the same opinion as Cliff, but I can absolutely see where that dissociation might be coming from. Often news focuses on the exceptions rather than the rule and that can lead to people like us always hearing about the terrible exceptions and thinking that's what's happening all the time. Think of news cycles and crime where people will assume crime is way up if news agencies focus more on crime stories even if statistically little has actually changed. Of course occasionally news will focus long standing problems and shine a light on them, but generally problems are long standing precisely because that doesn't happen. (Sorry if I'm being unclear, I'm quite tired)