Atlas Global Technologies LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. et al

On August 9, 2021, Atlas Global Technologies LLC (“Atlas” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Alden G. Harris, Blaine A. Larson, Eric James Enger, Michael F. Heim and William B. Collier, Jr. of Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP and Elizabeth L. DeRieux and S. Calvin Capshaw, III of Capshaw DeRieux, LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants”), seeking damages, enhanced damages and royalties, among other reliefs, for the alleged infringement of the United States Patents owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas with Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding.

The Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of the United States Patent No. 9,763,259 (“the ’259 Patent”), United States Patent No. 9,825,738 (“the ’738 Patent”), United States Patent No. 9,848,442 (“the ’442 Patent”), United States Patent No. 9,912,513 (“the ’513 Patent”), United States Patent No. 9,917,679 (“the ’679 Patent”), United States Patent No. 10,020,919 (“the ’919 Patent”), United States Patent No.10,153,886 (“the ’886 Patent”) and United States Patent No. 10,756,851 (“the ’851 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents” or “Patents-in-suit”) owned by the Plaintiff.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Samsung directly infringes the ’259 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States, and/or importing into the United States products that directly infringe the ’259 Patent, including the above identified Accused Products. The Accused Products infringe at least claim 1 of the ’259 Patent by practicing the 802.11ax Standard.”

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “In addition to directly infringing the ’259 method claims by using infringing products in the United States, Samsung also indirectly infringes the ’259 claims. Where acts constituting direct infringement of the ’259 Patent are not performed by Samsung, such acts constituting direct infringement of the ’259 Patent are performed by Samsung’s customers or end-users who act at the direction and/or control of Samsung, with Samsung’s knowledge.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Atlas is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Samsung indirectly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’259 Patent by active inducement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by at least manufacturing, supplying, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale the Accused Products to their customers with the knowledge and intent that use of those products would constitute direct infringement of the ’259 Patent.”

Similar allegations have been made by the Plaintiff with reference to the alleged infringement of other Patents-in-suit. 

There are eight claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff, one for the alleged infringement of each of the Patents-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court for declaratory reliefs; an accounting of all damages sustained by Plaintiff as the result of Samsung’s acts of infringement; for a mandatory future royalty payable on each and every future sale by Samsung of a product that is found to infringe one or more of the Asserted Patents and on all future products that are not colorably different from products found to infringe; to find that Samsung’s infringement is willful and enhancing damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 including attorneys’ fees and costs of suit as well as any other relief the Court deems just.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.