G+ Communications, Llc V. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Et Al

  • Court: Texas State, Marshall Division, District Court
  • Case Number: 2:22cv78
  • Filed: March 14, 2022
  • Judges: Rodney Gilstrap
  • Case Type: Patent (830)
  • Cause: Patent Infringement

Parties Involved

  • Plaintiff(s): G+ Communications, LLC
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Alexis Leia Ritzer | Daniel Louis Schmid | Edgar Leon Carter | Jeffrey A. Stephens | Lithaw Howard Lim | Michael Clayton Pomeroy | Scott W Breedlove | Bradley David Liddle | Benjamin Monnin | Jason G Sheasby | Justin Val Linetski | Lisa Sharrock Glasser | Michael David Harbour | Jennifer Leigh Truelove | Samuel Franklin Baxter | Theresa Marie Dawson
    • Expert witness for Plaintiff(s): Robert Akl | Paul Min | Stephen Wicker | John Kowalski | Dr. Rebecca Reed-Arthuras | Jean-Sebastian Borghetti | Dr. Stephen Wickers | Dr. Itamar Simonson | Stephen E. Dell

 

  • Defendant(s): Samsung Electronics Co. LTD| Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendants: Ruffin B Cordell| Aleksandr Gelberg | Bryan J. Cannon | Julianne Campbell | Kenton W Freeman Jr. | Lauren A Degnan | Linhong Zhang | Michael J McKeon | Ralph A Phillips | Rodeen Talebi | Sun Young Park | Thad C Kodish | Thomas Howard Reger II | James Travis Underwood | Melissa Richards Smith | Robert Scheffel
    • Expert witness for Defendant(s): Paul Meyer

Verdict Information

  • Verdict Date: January 26, 2024 | April 17, 2024
  • Total Damages awarded to Plaintiff: $142,000,000
    • For Patent 130 on April 17, 2024: $81,000,000
    • For Patent 776 on April 17,2024: $61,000,000

 About the Case

Cause

G+ Exploration, Inc. (G+) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit alleged that Samsung’s 5G-capable Galaxy smartphones and tablets, including the Galaxy Note20 5G, Galaxy S20 FE 5G, Galaxy S21 5G, Galaxy A Series 5G, and Galaxy Z Fold2 5G, infringed five of G+’s United States patents. These patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 9,913,776, 10,448,430, 9,184,881, 10,736,130, and 10,594,443.

The patents related to various 5G technologies and methods. The ‘776 patent covered a cell reselection method among cells on multiple frequencies. The ‘430 patent related to a random access method for sending preambles and monitoring responses. The ‘881 patent concerned a method for feeding back confirmation information on a physical uplink shared channel. The ‘130 patent involved a method for uplink control signal transmission by mapping predefined sequences to transmission symbols. The ‘443 patent pertained to a method for transmitting hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) information.

Injury

G+ claimed that the Accused Products infringed these patents by practicing the 3GPP 5G standards. In September 2021, G+ notified Samsung of the patent portfolio and alleged infringement. The company attempted to negotiate a license agreement on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, as the patents were essential to the 5G standard. The negotiations were unsuccessful, leading G+ to file the lawsuit.

G+ alleged that Samsung directly infringed the patents by making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, and distributing the Accused Products. G+ also claimed that Samsung indirectly infringed the patents through induced and contributory infringement. Samsung allegedly induced infringement by providing the Accused Products and instructions causing customers to infringe. Samsung also allegedly contributed to infringement by selling the Accused Products, which led to customers infringing when using them.

G+ asserted monetary damages due to Samsung’s infringement, including lost profits and reasonable royalties. Plaintiff claimed irreparable harm if Samsung’s infringement continued, necessitating injunctive relief. They also alleged willful infringement, stating that Samsung knew of the patents but continued infringing, which could entitle G+ to enhanced damages.

Damages

G+ sought damages, injunctive relief, willful infringement findings for enhanced damages, and other remedies against Samsung. Additionally, G+ requested the court declare the asserted patents valid and enforceable. The company also sought a declaration that Samsung literally infringed and/or infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. Furthermore, G+ requested prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

Jury Verdict

The jury determined that G+ did not prove that Samsung infringed Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,564,443. However, the jury found that Samsung infringed Claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,736,130. Based on this, the jury awarded G+ a reasonable royalty of $22,500,000 on January 26, 2024 for Samsung’s infringement of U.S. Patent No. ‘130. They also awarded $45,000,000 for infringement of the ‘776 Patent on January 26, 2024.

As per ipwatchdog, Samsung sought a new trial on damages. The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ordered this new trial. The court had “material concerns about jury confusion regarding the form of the reasonable royalty awarded.” The jury may have awarded damages as a running royalty instead of a lump sum, as intended. One factor influencing the court’s decision was the per-unit royalty rate. If the amounts awarded were running royalties, the rate for one patent would exceed the amount G+ requested at trial.

After that On April 17, 2024 the jury awarded $142,000,000 out of which $81,000,000 for patent 130 and $61,000,000 for patent 776.

The jury found that G+ did not breach its FRAND obligation. They concluded that G+ offered a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory license. G+ also acted in good faith during negotiations with Samsung. However, the jury did not find that Samsung breached its FRAND obligation either. They concluded that Samsung also acted in good faith during negotiations for a FRAND license.

Court Documents: Available upon Request