An Eastern District of Texas jury has decided that Samsung must pay Acorn Semi LLC $25 million for infringing four patents tied to semiconductor technology.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock
The jury found Samsung had infringed every patent claim the Acorn Technologies Inc. unit had asserted, but that none of the infringement was willful. Although Acorn requested $326 million and ongoing royalties, instead the jury landed on a significantly lower lump sum of $25 million for the misconduct.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,766,336; 9,461,167; 9,905,691 and 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, who is representing Acorn, told Law360 in an email.
Acorn had accused Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and other affiliates of manufacturing transistors for cellphones that ripped off a collection of its patents on a method to minimize contact resistance in small devices.
The trial started May 13, almost a year and a half after Acorn filed its complaint in the Marshall, Texas court. It was overseen by U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap
Samsung has challenged the validity of the four patents that went to trial at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, filing two petitions for inter partes review per patent. The PTAB has instituted the vast majority of those reviews, and is in the process of scrutinizing each of the four patents, according to online dockets.
Samsung has challenged the validity of each of the four patents, filing two petitions for inter partes review per patent from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. According to online dockets, the PTAB has instituted the vast majority of those reviews, and is in the process of investigating each of the four patents.
When Samsung initially attempted to get Judge Gilstrap to stay the litigation to await the PTAB’s rulings, he called the request “premature” in his September 2020 order, given that the PTAB had yet to decide whether to institute the reviews. When the topic was revisited post-institution, he still refused.
“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 final written decision,” he wrote two months before trial.
Read more articles from Haute Lawyer, visit https://hauteliving.com/hautelawyer/
