The California Institute of Technology has returned to the courtroom, this time with Samsung as its target. Samsung is accused of infringing on CalTech’s Wi-Fi patents. In the East Texas Federal Court, however, a complaint has been filed. CalTech won $1.1 billion against Broadcom and another business last year, prompting this complaint. “Samsung’s Galaxy phones, tablets, and watches employ Wi-Fi chips that violate five of our data-transmission patents, in addition to other Wi-Fi-enabled Samsung goods including televisions and refrigerators,” Caltech stated in the latest complaint.
Samsung has chosen to remain mute in response to any request for comment on the subject. Before the court, Caltech was represented by Susman Godfrey’s attorney Daniel Shih. Once the court found that Wi-Fi chips being used millions of devices infringed on Caltech patents, the Pasadena-based Caltech was owed $1.1 billion in royalties from Broadcom and also another business. However, the firms, including Broadcom, filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is currently pending.
“We are building three sophisticated chips geared exclusively for autos to overcome the worldwide semiconductor scarcity,” Samsung Electronics recently stated. “We are seeking a reasonable royalty from Samsung, as we have sought from Broadcom and other corporations,” Caltech claimed in its lawsuit. Caltech sued both Samsung and Microsoft in West Texas courts earlier this year, claiming that Microsoft had infringed on four of the patents. However, the lawsuit has been put on hold until the Federal Circuit rules on an appeal filed by Broadcom and other corporations.
“The Company’s Surface tablets, laptops, and Xbox video gaming consoles infringe,” the school’s lawsuit against Microsoft stated. Microsoft, on the other hand, has strenuously rejected all allegations leveled against it and appears to be arguing that Caltech’s patents are unlawful. California Institute of Technology v. Samsung Electronics Co, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case no. 2:21-cv-00446 is the name of the case.