Last week, District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III entered final judgment against Samsung based on a November 2018 jury verdict in litigation brought by German patent licensing firm Papst Licensing GmbH & Company Kg. That Eastern District of Texas jury found that Samsung had infringed a single patent through the provision of certain mobile devices and awarded $5.9M in damages, finding in a concurrent verdict that the infringement was not willful. Papst has notified the District of DC, which is overseeing a separate leg of this campaign targeting multiple camera makers, of the final judgment, and which is considering a motion filed by the defendants there that asks the court to apply collateral estoppel to invalidate the same patent ruled in Texas to have been infringed.
A jury in the Eastern District of Texas has returned an infringement verdict against Samsung in litigation brought by German patent licensing firm Papst Licensing GmbH & Company Kg. In that November 6 verdict, the jury found that Samsung had infringed a single patent through the provision of certain mobile devices and awarded $5.9M in damages; in a second verdict issued that same day, the company’s infringement was determined to be not willful. The patent at issue is one of five asserted in this case and throughout Papst Licensing’s sprawling, 12-year litigation campaign. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has cancelled claims from each of the other four patents—including all claims asserted against Samsung—in a series of inter partes reviews (IPRs) filed by Samsung and other campaign defendants.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had an eventful April, capped by two US Supreme Court decisions addressing inter partes review (IPR). While the Court found IPR constitutional in Oil States Energy Services, in its companion decision in SAS Institute, the Court also barred the PTAB’s practice of instituting trial as to a subset of the challenged claims (partial institution decisions). As a result, since those April 24 opinions, the PTAB has begun to institute trial for all challenged claims for IPR petitions where the petitioner is likely to prevail as to at least one claim (and for all petitioned grounds, a practice not required by SAS Institute). Among the affected IPRs instituted in late April were two against Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC, while the PTAB saw IPR petitions filed in April against Oyster Optics, LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. The Board also issued final decisions throughout April in IPRs against ChriMar Systems, Inc.; Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd.; Papst Licensing GmbH & Company Kg; Skky, Inc.; and Uniloc.