#copyright #patent #trademarks #infringement #intellectualproperty #IPR #IPRinfo #IPlaw #IPRrights #Trademarkclickcom #IP #entrepreneur #IPRBlog #IPBlog #Samsung #AcornTechnologies #royalty #PatentInfringement #HuestonHennigan #US #PatentWars
The jury decided against Samsung stating that it is guilty of patent infringement as claimed by the Acorn Technologies Inc. unit, but Jury also added that none of the infringement was willful. Acorn requested $326 million as damages in addition to ongoing royalties before the Court. But the jury landed on a significantly lower lump sum of about $25 million for Samsung’s misconduct.
The patents-in-suit are as follows:
- U.S. Patent Nos. 8,766,336;
- U.S. Patent Nos. 9,461,167;
- U.S. Patent Nos. 9,905,691 and
- U.S. Patent Nos. 10,090,395.
“We are pleased that the jury found infringement on all asserted claims and recognized the significant value of Acorn’s patented technology,” Doug Dixon of Hueston Hennigan LLP. He is representing Acorn before the Jury. Acorn had accused Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and other affiliates that they manufactured transistors for cellphones that infringed a collection of its patents. Those patents deal with a method of minimizing contact resistance in small devices.
The trial was started after almost a year and a half from the date when Acorn filed its complaint. The complaint was filed in the Marshall, Texas court. However, the complaint was overseen by U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. In response to such a complaint, Samsung challenged the validity of the four alleged patents that went to trial at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. It filed two petitions for inter partes review per patent. However, the PTAB successfully instituted the vast majority of those reviews and is still in the process of scrutinizing each of the four patents.
When Samsung initially tried to convince Judge Gilstrap to put a stay on the litigation to await the PTAB’s rulings, he called the request premature in his order given in September 2020. “This case is in a particularly advanced stage, and a jury trial on the current schedule will have long concluded before the PTAB is likely to issue a final written decision,” he wrote two months before trial. Let’s hope that others also will take a lesson from the ruling, in this case, to acknowledge other’s hard work and also to appreciate it morally, ethically, and professionally.