• Subscribe
  • Log In
  • Sign up for email updates
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

The Texas Lawbook

Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury

  • Appellate
  • Bankruptcy
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Corp. Deal Tracker/M&A
  • GCs/Corp. Legal Depts.
  • Firm Management
  • White-Collar/Regulatory
  • Pro Bono/Public Service/D&I

Jury Begins Deliberations in Patent Infringement Case Against Samsung

September 12, 2024 Krista Torralva

MARSHALL — A federal jury in Marshall began deliberating Thursday whether South Korean technology company Samsung Electronics infringed on wireless charging for cell phones patents obtained by California-based startup company Mojo Mobility. 

McKool Smith lawyers representing Mojo and its founder, Afshin Partovi, asked jurors in closing arguments to award more than $303.5 million and to give Mojo a running royalty. Samsung’s legal team, led by Paul Hastings attorneys, denied the company infringed and asserted the five patents at issue in the lawsuit were invalid. At issue are eight claims in the five Mojo patents. 

The trial began Sept. 6 before Chief U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The plaintiff rested its case Tuesday after presenting five witnesses. Samsung completed its case Wednesday after presenting six witnesses. 

The courtroom was sealed for much of the testimony about intellectual property. 

Samsung “dangled prospects of a win-win relationship” with Mojo for years, urging Partovi to share prototypes of his technology and inviting him to meet with the company four times in South Korea and once in Las Vegas, McKool Smith lawyer Steven J. Pollinger said in closing arguments. But in the end, Samsung ceased negotiations because the company didn’t want to pay Mojo, Pollinger said. 

“Samsung is trying to get something for free,” Pollinger told jurors. 

Samsung wanted Mojo to join a multinational technology consortium that would require Mojo to provide his patents royalty-free, Pollinger said. But Partovi declined invitations to join the consortium. 

Partovi formed Mojo in 2005 and filed patent applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office beginning in 2006, testimony showed, although the patents weren’t issued until years later. Pollinger pointed out Mojo’s technology was cited thousands of times in later patents.

Mojo wants the jury to ignore Samsung’s published research about wireless charging for cell phones before Mojo formed and award Partovi for work he did trying, unsuccessfully, to sell his technology, said Paul Hastings lawyer Robert Unikel, who represents Samsung. 

Not a single company has bought Mojo’s technology, Unikel said, likening Mojo’s efforts to failed pitches to investors on ABC’s Shark Tank.

“The people who don’t get deals on Shark Tank can’t demand payment from Mark Cuban because they put in a lot of work starting their businesses and preparing their pitches,” Unikel said. 

Mojo’s prototypes didn’t work with Samsung’s products, Unikel said, and Partovi wanted more in royalties than what made sense. 

Samsung pointed to an expert Mojo hired in 2015 to analyze its licensing options who opined Mojo stood to gain royalty rates between 5 cents and 20 cents per unit if it further developed its technology. Mojo sought about $2 in royalty rates.

“Mojo’s demand for $300 million just makes no sense,” Unikel said. 

Even if the jury found all five patents were infringed, Unikel suggested the amount owed shouldn’t exceed $13.2 million and should be awarded in a lump sum. 

But the claims in the five patents have key differences from Samsung’s technology, Unikel said while arguing the jury should find Samsung did not infringe. One of the patents, for example, requires authentication for the wireless charger to charge a device, which Samsung does not require. If Mojo didn’t prove that the patent was infringed, the most it should stand to gain is $5.6 million for the other four patents, Unikel argued. 

Samsung also asserted the patents couldn’t be infringed on because their eight claims were invalid. 

Mojo’s lawyers pointed out that this would have meant the USPTO was wrong eight times. “Samsung isn’t just saying the PTO got it wrong one time or two times,” McKool Smith lawyer Jennifer Leigh Truelove said. 

Mojo Mobility is also represented by Christopher Paul McNett, George Theodore Fishback Jr., Kyle N. Ryman, Charles E. Fowler Jr., Kenneth Scott, Kevin Lee Burgess, Neil Vasant Ozarkar, Ryan Bradley McBeth and Sam F. Baxter of McKool Smith. 

Samsung is also represented by Allan M. Soobert, David Valente, Elizabeth Louise Brann, Igor Victor Timofeyev, James V. Razick, Jason Mikus, John Anthony Cotiguala, Matthias Andreas Kamber, Sasha Vujcic and Soyoung Jung of Paul Hastings, Andrew Thompson Gorham, James Travis Underwood and Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith and George Philip Cowden of Cowden Law Firm.  

Deliberations continue Friday.

The case is Mojo Mobility Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:22-cv-00398-JRG-RSP.

©2025 The Texas Lawbook.

Content of The Texas Lawbook is controlled and protected by specific licensing agreements with our subscribers and under federal copyright laws. Any distribution of this content without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.

If you see any inaccuracy in any article in The Texas Lawbook, please contact us. Our goal is content that is 100% true and accurate. Thank you.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Stories

  • Owner of Houston Chronicle Buys The Dallas Morning News
  • Legal Experts: River Inn, Mystic Camp and Others to Face Investigations and Litigation
  • Cousins Testify at Trial in Dispute Over Cicis Pizza Business Partnership
  • McGuireWoods Names Tyler VanHoutan as New Houston Office Managing Partner
  • A Practical Guide to Recovering Fees Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920

Footer

Who We Are

  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Submit a News Tip

Stay Connected

  • Sign up for email updates
  • Article Submission Guidelines
  • Premium Subscriber Editorial Calendar

Our Partners

  • The Dallas Morning News
The Texas Lawbook logo

1409 Botham Jean Blvd.
Unit 811
Dallas, TX 75215

214.232.6783

© Copyright 2025 The Texas Lawbook
The content on this website is protected under federal Copyright laws. Any use without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.