Samsung defeats $4bn damages claim over semiconductors
South Korean tech company avoids the largest damages claim in US history | Jury decision ends four-year dispute over semiconductor tech patents | Wilful damages bid could have landed Samsung with damages of more than $12bn.
Samsung has secured a victory in its semiconductor dispute against a US chip technology company, dismissing a $4 billion damages demand.
The decision, delivered Friday 16, 2023, at the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, rejected the patent infringement claims put forward by Demaray.
The claims centred around semiconductor manufacturing technology used in Samsung's fabrication facilities both in Texas and abroad.
The week-long trial marked an end to a lawsuit initiated by Demaray in July 2020, owned by patent inventor Ernest Demaray and others.
Demaray sued Samsung and its subsidiaries claiming that Samsung provided reactor components to its manufacturing facilities and sold products using methods for magnetron sputtering, a type of physical vapour-deposition technique.
Demaray alleged that these actions by Samsung infringed on its patents—US patent numbers 7,544,276 and 7,381,657.
In September 2020, Samsung denied the allegations and later argued that the patents in question were not valid.
However, in June 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the validity of the patents, asserting that they were not obvious when considering prior discoveries.
Largest defence-side verdict in US history
The jury's rejection of the $4 billion damages claim is believed to be the largest defence-side verdict in a US patent case.
If the damages had been awarded, it would have surpassed the largest patent verdict in US history by $1.5 billion.
Additionally, before the trial was set to begin, Demaray successfully opposed a motion for summary judgment on its willful infringement patent claim against Samsung.
If the jury awarded the damages sought and found willful infringement, Demaray could have been awarded more than $12 billion given that patent law allows damages to be enhanced up to three times the amount of the verdict for willful infringement.
This case also presented unique challenges for Samsung in terms of patent defence.
For example, Demaray used a settlement agreement related to the same patents and products to imply that Samsung was already liable and deliberately avoided a settlement as a strategic move.
Samsung addressed the claims by relying on witnesses from the equipment supplier, Applied Materials, and arguing the plaintiff used large damages demands to force settlements.
The trial judge instructed the jury that certain suggestions made by Demaray’s counsel at the trial were “false and improper”.
Demaray was represented by Alan Heinrich, Benjamin Hattenbach, Elizabeth Tuan, Jeffrey Linxwiler, Jordan Nafekh, Michael Rosen, Morgan Chu, Olivia Lauren Weber, Richard Birnholz, Samuel K Lu, and Dominik Slusarczyk from Irell & Manella, Crawford Maclain Wells from Folio Law Group, Ian Davis, Travis Barton, Richard Milvenan from McGinnis Lochridge, and Alexander Lee and Thomas Charles Horn.
Samsung was represented by Akshay Deoras, Christian Erwin, Gregory Polins, John Polansky, Kamden Keizo Segawa, Kendra Ann Delaney, Kyle Calhoun, Leslie Schmidt, Michael De Vries, Sarah Mikosz, Sharre Lotfollahi, Adam Alper, Jiaxiao Zhang, Kat Li, and Nadia Elena Haghighatian from Kirkland & Ellis, and Cosmin Maier, Christian Dorman, John Desmarais, Madeline Elisabeth Byrd, and Yung-Hoon Ha from Desmarais.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
