Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Wipqtus, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 25-1596 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026)

Affirmed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 25-1596
Decided
September 11, 2026
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

WIPQTUS, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

Appellee

2025-1596

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2024-00023.

JUDGMENT

BRIAN ANDREW CARPENTER, Cole Schotz P.C., Dallas, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by TIMOTHY J.H. CRADDOCK, GARY SORDEN.

TRENTON A. WARD, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellee. Also represented by JULIE PAMELA BOOKBINDER, THOMAS PEASE, New York, NY; ANDREW RYAN SOMMER, McLean, VA.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

September 11, 2026

Date

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Wipqtus, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 25-1596 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2026).

Record ID
CAFC-25-1596-20260911
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1596-20260911

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.