On November 5, 2021, Stanton Techiya, LLC filed suit against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. for patent infringement seeking approximately $500 Million Dollars in damages. Techiya alleged that Samsung had infringed on 14 patents involving Samsung’s smartphones and Artificial Intelligence app. The significance of these claims cannot be understated as the patents in question could have potentially hindered Samsung’s global market presence in the smart phone industry – a sector that Samsung has enjoyed massive success in.
Despite the daunting figure, an internal investigation provided the Korean conglomerate with just the ammunition it needed to dig its heels into the ground and push back. While Samsung responded with a flurry of its own counterclaims, it wasn’t an overpowering offensive rebound that proved to be most effective. Rather, Samsung’s victory came by way of the shield, one that was hardened by the affirmative defense known as unclean hands. And though the cogs that spin the wheels of law may often churn slowly, nearly three years later an order issued in May 2024 held that Techiya’s patent infringement claims were unenforceable against Samsung.
Samsung’s confidence in its unclean hands defense came as a result of an internal investigation in January 2023 – a large reason why nearly three years elapsed before a trial was held. As outlined in the Court’s Findings of Fact and Law, the investigation revealed that a Samsung employee may have been providing inside information concerning the patents in question to former Samsung IP Center Head Dr. Seungho Ahn and former in-house IP attorney Mr. Sunghil Cho. At this point, Dr. Ahn and Mr. Cho were employed in connection with Synergy IP Corporation which operated as Techiya’s litigation partner against Samsung. While these initial findings amounted to nothing more than a list of suspicions, a criminal investigation into Dr. Ahn and Mr. Cho later in the year would confirm what Samsung had suspected.
The criminal investigation was initially brought to Samsung’s attention in late 2023 when a Korean prosecutor presented its findings during a witness interview. The evidence revealed phone calls between Dr. Ahn and Mr. Cho in which they discussed receiving and analyzing confidential and privileged information regarding the patents that would form the center of the lawsuit. The information was further revealed to have come from a Samsung employee, identified as Chunghyo Lee, who would continue to serve as a mule for information even after the suit had been filed.
Once this evidence was relayed to Samsung’s U.S. counsel, the following months were filled with requests that Techiya and Synergy produce documentation that would illustrate the full extent of their misconduct. One particularly damming email between Robert Gaybrick of PC Law and Dr. Ahn demonstrates the deceptive legal practices that Techiya attempted to keep underground, it reads, “with your intimate knowledge of Samsung I hope that we can stay one step ahead of it on this case.”
By highlighting the deceptive practices employed by Techiya and Synergy alike, Samsung illustrates what a court of equity seeks to achieve – fairness. While a discussion may be had whether Techiya’s patent claims held any water, the Court’s decision demonstrates that it will not tolerate even meritorious claims that have been fueled by wrongdoing. In this case, Techiya’s attempt to bury its own misconduct without getting a little dirt on the gloves proved to be an impossible feat, resulting in a decision illuminating the legal principle that “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands.”
