Ward Participations B.V. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

On August 4, 2021, Ward Participations B.V. (“Ward Participations” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Erick Scott Robinson of Porter Hedges LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants” with each Samsung entity a “Defendant”), seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive reliefs and damages along with prejudgement and post-judgement interests among other reliefs for the alleged infringement of the United States Patents owned by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed this complaint in the United States District Court in the Western District of Texas.

The Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of the United States Patent No. 10,992,480 (“the ‘480 patent”), entitled “Method and System for Performing a Transaction and for Performing a Verification of Legitimate Access to, or Use of Digital Data” and United States Patent No. 11,063,766 (“the ‘766 patent”), entitled “Method and System for Performing a Transaction and for Performing a Verification of Legitimate Access to, or Use of Digital Data” (collectively, “Patents-in-suit”) owned by the Plaintiff. 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Each Defendant has, under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims, including without limitation at least claim 1 of the ‘480 patent, by making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale and/or importing into the United States the Accused Products.”

Further, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Each Defendant also indirectly infringes the ‘480 patent by actively inducing the direct infringement by third parties under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Each Defendant has knowingly and intentionally actively aided, abetted and induced others to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘480 patent (such as its customers in this District and throughout the United States).”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Each Defendant has knowledge that its activities concerning the Accused Products infringe one or more claims of the ‘480 patent. On information and belief, each Defendant will continue to encourage, aid, or otherwise cause third parties to import, sell, offer for sale, and use the Accused Products (which are acts of direct infringement of the ‘480 patent) and each Defendant has and will continue to encourage those acts with the specific intent to infringe one or more claims of the ‘480 patent.”

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

There are two 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 preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and declaratory reliefs, along with an award for damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 including past damages based on, inter alia, any necessary compliance with 35 U.S.C. §287, treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284, and supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement along with enhanced damages and compulsory ongoing royalty. Further, the Plaintiff requested the Court for prejudgement and post-judgement interests along with attorneys’ fees and costs and 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.