IP Law Daily, PATENT—E.D. Tex.: Samsung denied stay in smartphone display patent case, (Mar 18, 2024)
Law Firms Mentioned:Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP | O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Organizations Mentioned:Gillam & Smith, LLP | O'Melveny & Myers, LLP | Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC | Samsung Display Co., Ltd. | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.
A motion to sever and stay infringement proceedings related to a patent for which an IPR proceeding was ongoing was denied because it would substantially prejudice the patentee without significantly simplifying the issues for the court.
Samsung was not entitled to a stay in its defense of a patent infringement case pending inter partes review of one of three asserted patents, the federal district court in Marshall, Texas, has held. The speedy resolution of the patentee’s claims outweighed any benefits that could come from waiting for the IPR proceeding to conclude (Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. , March 15, 2024, Gilstrap, R.).
Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC (Polaris) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,259,521 (the ’521 patent); 8,217,887 (the ’887 patent); and 8,740,456 (the ’456 patent), each of which claimed components used in smartphones. Polaris brought suit for infringement of all three patents against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and other Samsung entities (collectively, Samsung). Samsung petitioned for inter partes review of all three patents and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted review only as to the ’251 patent. Samsung then moved to sever and stay the claims related to the ’251 patent pending the completion of the IPR proceeding.
Stay. Samsung argued that the claims related to the ’251 patent dealt with issues and products unrelated to those involved with the other two patents, so they could be easily separated and would simplify the issues before the court.
The court found that severing the claims would instead likely result in unnecessary duplication of efforts should any claims survive the IPR, including multiple claim constructions, pretrial conferences, and discovery. Additionally, the court found that Polaris would suffer severe prejudice from what could be a multi-year delay in the enforcement of its asserted patent rights.
The court denied the motion to sever and stay.
The case is No. 2:22-cv-00469-JRG.
Attorneys: Robert F. Kramer (Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP) for Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC. Benjamin Haber (O'Melveny & Myers LLP) and Melissa Richards Smith (Gillam & Smith, LLP) for Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
Companies: Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Display Co., Ltd.
Cases: Patent TexasNews