MyPAQ Holdings v. Samsung: All Four Patents Invalidated, Case Dismissed With Prejudice
MyPAQ Holdings asserted four power management patents against Samsung’s EP-TA800, EP-TA845, EP-TA865 chargers and Power IC S2MM101. After the PTAB found all asserted claims unpatentable across four IPRs, the Federal Circuit affirmed on all three appealed decisions, and the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice — extinguishing MyPAQ’s infringement claims permanently after 1,504 days of litigation.
Four Power Management Patents Annihilated by PTAB and Federal Circuit
MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd. filed suit on April 23, 2021 in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, asserting that Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,403,399, 7,978,489, 7,675,759, and 8,477,514 through the manufacture and sale of the EP-TA800, EP-TA845, and EP-TA865 USB power adapters and the S2MM101 Power IC. Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. were co-defendants on the ‘759 and ‘514 patents, with Samsung and Dell jointly petitioning for IPR on those two assets.
Samsung filed IPR petitions in December 2021 across all four patents; the PTAB instituted review on all four in May 2022. In May 2023, the PTAB issued Final Written Decisions finding every asserted claim unpatentable. MyPAQ appealed three of the four FWDs to the Federal Circuit; the court affirmed the ‘399 decision in December 2024 and affirmed the ‘511 and ‘512 decisions together in April 2025. With appellate options exhausted, the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on June 5, 2025.
The 1,504-day duration reflects the full arc of parallel district-court and IPR proceedings, compounded by Federal Circuit appeals — a pattern that is common when patentees face institution on all asserted claims simultaneously. The public record does not disclose any settlement payment or licensing arrangement, and the with-prejudice dismissal forecloses any refiling of these specific claims against Samsung. What remains unknown is whether MyPAQ retains any related continuation patents that could support future assertions in this technology space.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1504 days
1,504 days in litigation — over 4 years from filing to stipulated dismissal
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated end means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice ends all claims permanently
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a final adjudication on the merits — MyPAQ cannot refile these infringement claims against Samsung based on the same four patents. The stipulated nature means both parties agreed, consistent with the Federal Circuit having already affirmed the PTAB’s unpatentability findings on all three appealed IPRs, leaving MyPAQ with no viable legal avenue to continue.
Permanent bar on re-filingMyPAQ’s four patents are effectively dead against Samsung
The PTAB’s Final Written Decisions, now affirmed by the Federal Circuit, cancel the challenged claims. Combined with the with-prejudice dismissal of the district court case, MyPAQ cannot assert these specific patent claims against Samsung or Dell. The litigation represents a complete enforcement failure: four patents asserted, four IPRs instituted, all claims found unpatentable, and all appeals exhausted or not taken.
All claims unpatentableSamsung secures full freedom to operate on these power management claims
Samsung and Dell achieved the strongest possible outcome — cancelled patent claims and a with-prejudice dismissal. The S2MM101 Power IC and associated charger product lines face no further exposure from these four patents. The IPR strategy, executed with dual Samsung and Dell petitions coordinated across all four patents within days of each other, proved decisive and may serve as a template for future coordinated patent challenges.
Full FTO on accused productsPower management IP landscape: IPR remains the dominant defensive tool
This outcome reinforces that coordinated, promptly-filed IPR petitions covering all asserted claims simultaneously can defeat a multi-patent assertion before a district court case reaches trial. For companies in the power semiconductor and USB charging space, this case signals that asserted patents with overlapping claim scope across multiple assets remain vulnerable to PTAB challenge — and that Federal Circuit affirmance on appeal is the norm, not the exception, for well-constructed IPR petitions.
IPR strategy validatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd. | Company | Power management IP licensing entity — holder of US7403399B2, US7978489B1, US7675759B2 & US8477514B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Global consumer electronics and semiconductor manufacturer; maker of the accused EP-TA800/845/865 chargers and S2MM101 Power ICSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfonso Garcia Chan | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian D. Melton | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles L. Ainsworth | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Halima Shukri Ndai | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Krisina J. Zuniga | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael W. Shore | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mu Lin Hsu | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Christopher Bunt | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samuel E. Joyner | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Thomas Glass | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven M. Shepard | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas V. DelRosario | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William D. Ellerman | Attorney | Counsel for MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing | Law Firm | Representing MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP | Law Firm | Representing MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC | Law Firm | Representing MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Frost, Brown & Todd LLC | Law Firm | Representing MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | King & Spalding LLP | Law Firm | Representing MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth PC | Law Firm | Representing MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Susman Godfrey LLP | Law Firm | Representing MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Shore Firm LLP | Law Firm | Representing MyPAQ Holdings, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brett Thompsen | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Frank Zhu | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Travis Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil P. Sirota | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert L. Maier | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Syed K. Fareed | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | McDermott Will & Emery LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal order recites the full IPR procedural history as operative context, making clear that the with-prejudice outcome was a direct consequence of the PTAB’s unpatentability findings and the Federal Circuit’s affirmance — not an independent merits determination by the district court. For MyPAQ, the Federal Circuit’s affirmances under the substantial evidence standard left no viable appellate path, effectively compelling the stipulation. For Samsung, the order provides a clean record: all four patent claim sets are cancelled and the district court case is closed with finality.
US7403399B2, US7978489B1, US7675759B2 & US8477514B2 — Power Management IC Patents
The four asserted patents — US7403399B2 (App. No. 11/394,734), US7978489B1 (App. No. 12/221,567), US7675759B2 (App. No. 11/710,276), and US8477514B2 (App. No. 12/709,795) — collectively cover power management IC architectures, switching regulation methods, and charging control systems relevant to USB power adapters and related semiconductor devices. The application dates span the mid-to-late 2000s, placing the inventions in the generation of portable device charging infrastructure that predates USB Power Delivery standardization.
In the context of Samsung’s high-wattage USB-C charger lineup (EP-TA800 series) and the S2MM101 Power IC, these patents represented an attempt to capture value from the rapid growth of fast-charging technology. The PTAB’s finding that all asserted claims were unpatentable — upheld by the Federal Circuit — suggests the claims lacked sufficient novelty or non-obviousness over prior art, a significant outcome for licensing entities active in the power semiconductor space where Samsung holds deep freedom-to-operate interests.
Should you run an FTO against US7403399B2 and the three related power management patents?
Any company developing or commercialising power management ICs, USB charging adapters, fast-charging controllers, or related semiconductor devices should be aware of these four patent families. While the asserted claims have been cancelled by the PTAB and the Federal Circuit has affirmed those decisions, related continuation or divisional applications from the same priority chains may still be active. Firms in the USB-C adapter, GaN charger, and power IC segments face particular exposure if they have not audited the full family trees of these four patents.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the complete patent family trees for US7403399, US7978489, US7675759, and US8477514 — identifying any surviving continuations, divisionals, or foreign counterparts. Eureka’s claim analytics layer allows product teams to compare claim language against specific product architectures, delivering a structured FTO report that flags residual risk even where the originally asserted claims have been cancelled.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7403399B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar power management patent cases before WDTX and the Federal Circuit
Explore related patent infringement actions involving power management IC and USB charging technology litigated before the Western District of Texas and the Federal Circuit.
What this case signals for the power management IC IP landscape
A coordinated multi-patent IPR strategy defeated a four-patent assertion against Samsung’s charging product line. Here’s what it means.
Simultaneous IPR filing across all asserted patents is a decisive tactic
Samsung and Dell filed petitions on all four patents within two days of each other, achieving institution on all four simultaneously. This denied MyPAQ any sequencing advantage and ensured the PTAB addressed patentability before the district court could reach trial. Companies facing multi-patent assertions in the power management space should evaluate this coordinated approach as standard practice.
Federal Circuit affirmance rate on PTAB FWDs should factor into appeal calculus
MyPAQ appealed three of four adverse FWDs; the Federal Circuit affirmed all three, consuming roughly 18–24 months of additional time and cost. For patent holders weighing appeals of PTAB decisions in the power semiconductor space, this case is a data point suggesting that affirmance is the most likely outcome absent a clear legal error in the PTAB’s analysis.
MyPAQ v Samsung — key questions answered
MyPAQ Holdings asserted four power management patents against Samsung’s EP-TA800 series chargers and S2MM101 Power IC in the Western District of Texas. Samsung filed IPR petitions on all four patents; the PTAB found all asserted claims unpatentable in May 2023. The Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal in December 2024 and April 2025. The parties then stipulated to dismissal with prejudice on June 5, 2025.
MyPAQ asserted US7403399B2, US7978489B1, US7675759B2, and US8477514B2 — four patents covering power management IC architectures and charging control methods. The accused products were Samsung’s EP-TA800XBEGUS, EP-TA845XBEGUS, and EP-TA865 USB power adapters and the S2MM101 Power IC semiconductor device.
The PTAB instituted all four IPR petitions in May 2022. In May 2023, it issued Final Written Decisions finding the challenged claims unpatentable in all four proceedings: IPR2022-00307, IPR2022-00308, IPR2022-00311, and IPR2022-00312. These decisions collectively addressed all claims asserted in the district court case, rendering the infringement action moot pending any appeal.
MyPAQ appealed three of the four Final Written Decisions. The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in IPR2022-00307 (covering US7403399B2) on December 4, 2024, and affirmed the decisions in IPR2022-00311 and IPR2022-00312 (covering US7675759B2 and US8477514B2) in a written opinion on April 24, 2025. MyPAQ did not appeal IPR2022-00308 (covering US7978489B1), or that appeal was not referenced in the dismissal order.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits. MyPAQ cannot refile infringement claims against Samsung based on US7403399B2, US7978489B1, US7675759B2, or US8477514B2. Combined with the PTAB’s cancellation of the asserted claims — affirmed by the Federal Circuit — these four patents are effectively extinguished as enforcement tools against Samsung and Dell.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.