 |
| (Source: Samsung) |
Pinn Audio has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, accusing the companies of infringing patents related to wireless earbud technology.
The complaint, filed Jan. 29, 2026, alleges that Samsung infringed six U.S. patents owned by Pinn Audio, a Delaware-based company, through its Galaxy Buds product line.
The asserted patents include U.S. Patent No. 10,455,066, titled "Mobile System with Wireless Earbud"; U.S. Patent No. 10,609,198, titled "Personal Media System Including Base Station and Wireless Earbud"; U.S. Patent No. 10,701,197, titled "Mobile System with Wireless Earbud"; U.S. Patent No. 11,102,340, titled "Mobile System with Wireless Earbud"; U.S. Patent No. 11,616,871, titled "Mobile System with Wireless Earbud"; and U.S. Patent No. 11,849,061, titled "Mobile System with Wireless Earbud."
According to the complaint, the accused products include Samsung's Galaxy Buds3 Pro, Galaxy Buds3, and Galaxy Buds3 FE wireless earbuds.
The case is Pinn Audio v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-00077, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Pinn Audio, formerly known as Pinn Inc., has previously asserted related patents against major technology companies. In September 2019, the company sued Apple Inc., Google LLC and Samsung Electronics America Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,455,066, 10,609,198, and 9,807,491. That litigation was resolved through settlement in November 2020.
During the California litigation, Apple sought post-grant review of the '066 patent in 2020, but the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to institute review. Apple later filed inter partes review petitions challenging the same patent but moved to dismiss those petitions prior to institution. Apple also petitioned for post-grant review of the '198 patent in 2020, which the PTAB likewise declined to institute.
By PatenTrip
Comments
Post a Comment