U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder III has determined a $111.7 million jury verdict against Samsung Electronics cannot stand in a patent infringement case brought by Maxell Ltd.
In a three-page order, the federal judge granted Samsung’s motion for judgment as a matter of law that it had not infringed asserted claims in three patents covering technology used in smart phones and smart home appliances. The judge also invalidated asserted claims in two of the patents in the Sept. 18 order.
Jurors who sat through a weeklong trial before Judge Schroeder in May had determined Samsung willfully infringed Maxell’s patented technology used in smart phones and smart home appliances.
At trial, Maxell alleged Samsung’s SmartThings Station products infringed three parents covering techniques for video processing, managing digital data and unlocking functions.
Maxell sued Samsung in 2023, alleging that while Samsung in the past had licensed the technology, it refused to renew the agreement and therefore was infringing its patents.
In its posttrial motion, Samsung argued there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings that it had infringed the patents and had done so willfully. It reminded the court of “clear and convincing” evidence presented at trial about technology used in both the iPhone 8 and the Galaxy S10 that it argued renders asserted claims in one of the patents invalid.
“Maxell failed at trial to offer a legally sufficient basis to find infringement of any asserted claim of the three asserted patents. Indeed, Samsung presented compelling evidence of noninfringement of each asserted patent, even though Samsung does not bear the burden of proving noninfringement,” Samsung told the court. “Samsung also presented compelling evidence that it had no specific intent to infringe the asserted patents, whereas Maxell presented no evidence that could support Samsung’s specific intent. As a result, no reasonable jury could have found that Samsung willfully infringed.”
Challenging the jury’s finding that its infringement had been willful, Samsung argued in its motion for judgment as a matter of law that Maxell’s evidence in support of that — two letters Maxell sent to Samsung in July 2021 — was insufficient.
“This evidence is not legally sufficient to meet Maxell’s burden to prove that it communicated to Samsung a specific charge of infringement by specific products such that Samsung had knowledge of a clear risk of infringement,” Samsung argued. “The July 2021 letter identified two of the asserted patents (the ’086 and ’848 patents) among an undifferentiated list of more than 200 other patents.”
Maxell is represented by Geoffrey Culbertson and Kelly Tidwell of Patton Tidwell & Culbertson and by Jamie B. Beaber, Kfir B. Levy, Alan Grimaldi, James A. Fussell III, Saqib J. Siddiqui, Bryan C. Nese, Michael L. Lindinger, Tiffany A. Miller, Alison T. Gelsleichter, Tariq Javed, Seth W. Bruneel, Courtney Krawice, Séké G. Godo and So Ra Ko of Mayer Brown.
Samsung is represented by Melissa R. Smith and Andrew Gorham of Gillam & Smith, and by Brian K. Erickson, Sean Cunningham, Erin Gibson, Mark Fowler, Erik Fuehrer, Michael Jay, Martin Ellison, James Heintz, Gianni Minutoli, Helena Kiepura, Sangwon Sung, Paulina Starostka and Benjamin Mueller of DLA Piper.