Mojo Mobility Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Et Al

Case Background

On October 7, 2022, Plaintiff Mojo Mobility Inc. filed a Patent Infringement lawsuit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas(Case number: 2:22cv398). This case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and later referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

Cause

Mojo Mobility, founded in 2005 by Dr. Afshin Partovi, pioneered innovative wireless charging technologies for mobile devices. With a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering and experience at NASA Jet Propulsion Labs and Bell Labs, Dr. Partovi aimed to eliminate the hassle of multiple charging cables for various devices. From 2013 onwards, Samsung showed significant interest in Mojo Mobility’s technology. Samsung representatives inspected Mojo’s prototypes and requested detailed information about the inventions. They invited Mojo representatives to several meetings at Samsung’s headquarters in Suwon, Korea. During these meetings, Samsung expressed strong interest in integrating Mojo’s technology into its Galaxy line of smartphones and wireless chargers.

Despite extensive discussions and demonstrations, Samsung declined to formalize a business relationship or compensate Mojo for its technology. Instead, Samsung suggested that Mojo should collaborate with Samsung’s third-party suppliers at its own expense. Contrary to expectations of a mutually beneficial partnership, Samsung incorporated Mojo’s patented innovations into its products, including Galaxy smartphones, without compensating Mojo Mobility.

Injuries

Mojo Mobility faced substantial financial harm due to Samsung’s unauthorized use of its patented wireless charging technology. The company lost reasonable royalties and licensing fees, potentially amounting to millions of dollars given the widespread use of wireless charging in Samsung’s popular product lines. Additionally, Mojo incurred significant costs traveling to Korea multiple times and providing prototypes to Samsung, without securing a business relationship or compensation. These expenses, incurred in good faith to develop a partnership, directly impacted Mojo Mobility’s finances.

The unauthorized use of Mojo’s technology may have also harmed the company’s market position and ability to license its technology to other manufacturers, as Samsung’s products gained a competitive advantage without proper compensation to Mojo.

Damages

The plaintiff requested several forms of relief in their prayer. They sought a judgment declaring that Samsung directly and indirectly infringed one or more claims of each patent-in-suit. The plaintiff asked the court to find Samsung’s infringement willful and deliberate. They demanded damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 for past infringement and any ongoing post-verdict infringement, including both compensatory and treble damages for willful infringement. The plaintiff also requested pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the awarded damages.

Further, they asked the court to declare this an exceptional case and require Samsung to pay all costs and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The plaintiff sought an accounting for damages and requested actual damages sufficient to compensate for Samsung’s infringement until the infringing conduct ceased. Additionally, they asked for a judgment requiring Samsung to pay compulsory ongoing licensing fees for any future use of the patents-in-suit. Finally, the plaintiff requested any other relief deemed just and proper by the court.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): Mojo Mobility Inc.
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Christopher Paul McNett| George Theodore Fishback, Jr. | Kyle N. Ryman | Steven John Pollinger | Charles E. Fowler, Jr. | Jennifer Leigh Truelove | Kenneth Scott | Kevin Lee Burgess | Neil Vasant Ozarkar | Ryan Bradley McBeth | Sam F. Baxter
    • Experts for Plaintiff(s): David Baarman |  Dr. Rebbecca Reed-Arthurs |  Jim Bergman

 

  • Defendant(s):Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. | Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendants: Robert W. Unikel| Allan M. Soobert | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | David Valente | Elizabeth Louise Brann | George Philip Cowden | Igor Victor Timofeyev | James V. Razick | James Travis Underwood | Jason Mikus | John Anthony Cotiguala | Kevin Stewart | Matthias Andreas Kamber | Melissa Richards Smith | Sasha Vujcic | Soyoung Jung

Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel

McKool Smith led by Austin-based principal Steven Pollinger said: “Our client Mojo appreciates the jury’s attention and is pleased the jury recognised the facts and the issues at stake.” He added Mojo “looks forward to compensation for developing this critical technology.”

Claims

Mojo Mobility alleges that Samsung directly and indirectly infringed seven of its patents related to wireless charging technology. The patents in question are:

  1. U.S. Patent No. 7,948,208 (‘208 patent)
  2. U.S. Patent No. 9,577,440 (‘440 patent)
  3. U.S. Patent No. 11,292,349 (‘349 patent)
  4. U.S. Patent No. 11,316,371 (‘371 patent)
  5. U.S. Patent No. 11,201,500 (‘500 patent)
  6. U.S. Patent No. 11,342,777 (‘777 patent’)
  7. U.S. Patent No. 11,462,942 (‘942 patent’)

The company claims Samsung’s infringement was willful, given its prior knowledge of Mojo’s patents and the extensive discussions between the two companies. This allegation of willful infringement could lead to enhanced damages. Mojo seeks damages for past and ongoing infringement, including treble damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The company also requests a permanent injunction to prevent Samsung from continuing to use Mojo’s patented technologies without authorization. Additionally, Mojo Mobility is seeking attorney’s fees and costs, arguing that this case qualifies as “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 due to Samsung’s willful infringement despite its knowledge of Mojo’s patents.

Accused Products

The lawsuit targets a range of Samsung products that allegedly incorporate Mojo Mobility’s patented wireless charging technologies without authorization, including:

  1. Samsung Galaxy smartphones capable of wireless power reception and/or transmission, such as the S22 and Z4 series
  2. Samsung wireless chargers, including Wireless Charger Pads/Stands, Wireless Charger Portable Batteries, and Galaxy Watch/Fit Wireless Charging Docks
  3. Samsung wearable products that receive wireless power, such as the Samsung Galaxy Watch and Fit
  4. Samsung earbud products with wireless charging capabilities, like the Samsung Buds case
  5. Samsung pen charger products providing wireless power to a stylus pen, including certain Galaxy smartphones, tablets, and laptops
  6. Samsung stylus pens that receive wireless power, like the S Pen

The complaint alleges that these products infringe Mojo’s patents through their implementation of wireless charging and power transfer technologies.

Defense

Samsung responded to Mojo Mobility’s complaint by filing an answer and affirmative defenses. Samsung denied most of Mojo Mobility’s allegations, including claims of patent infringement. They admitted some basic facts about the company structure and past interactions with Mojo Mobility but denied using Mojo’s technology. Samsung challenged the validity and enforceability of Mojo’s patents. They acknowledged having conference calls and a meeting with Mojo in 2013, as well as receiving a prototype, but denied that this led to using Mojo’s technology. Samsung admitted informing Mojo that they acquire some wireless charging components from third-party suppliers but denied being unwilling to pay for the use of Mojo’s technology, stating they never used it. Samsung also contested the convenience of the venue. Overall, Samsung broadly denied Mojo Mobility’s claims of patent infringement and damages while admitting only limited factual details about past interactions between the companies.

Expert Testimony

Jim Bergman analyzed the financial value of the claimed invention, drawing on his experience in wireless charging technologies and intellectual property. David Baarman discussed his background in the field and his business efforts related to licensing and monetization. Dr. Rebecca Reed-Arthurs conducted a survey to assign value to the invention, considering market potential and technological significance.

Jury Verdict

On September 13, 2024, the jury found in favor of Mojo Mobility on multiple patent infringement claims against Samsung. They determined that Samsung infringed Claim 1 of the ‘440 Patent, Claims 23 and 30 of the ‘500 Patent, Claims 28 and 30 of the ‘371 Patent, and Claims 1 and 21 of the ‘942 Patent. The jury also found that Samsung failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that any of these asserted claims were invalid as obvious. Furthermore, the jury concluded that Samsung willfully infringed the asserted claims that were found to be both infringed and not invalid. As compensation for the infringement, the jury awarded Mojo Mobility damages amounting to $192,136,029.00.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request

Press Release:

https://www.globallegalpost.com/news/jury-orders-samsung-to-pay-192m-in-patent-suit-94513321