A federal judge in Delaware on Tuesday criticized Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. for using a Delaware lawsuit to attack a nearly $21 million patent infringement ruling in Texas, saying the same issues are already being considered on appeal.

U.S. District Judge Mark A. Kearney, visiting from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, said the Delaware case was a “classic” example of tactical litigation meant to work around adverse results in other jurisdictions.

“We are not the court of appeals for the Texas district court. Samsung cannot argue here what it already lost in Texas,” Kearney wrote in a strongly worded 11-page memorandum.

The Delaware suit stemmed from a heated infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where Imperium IP Holdings had won a roughly $7 million jury verdict against Samsung for infringing patents for taking photos with an electronic device.

U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the Eastern District of Texas last year tripled the damages in the case, after finding Samsung had willfully infringed and repeatedly lied under oath. Samsung, Mazzant found, had known about Imperium's patents for years and even tried to buy them through a broker before the case began in 2014.

Samsung has appealed those rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Samsung filed its Delaware suit back in November 2015, arguing that Imperium had violated an earlier agreement not to sue over the patents, but former Judge Sue L. Robinson stayed the case while the Texas case proceeded.

Robinson's stay was lifted in 2015, and the electronics giant filed a complaint alleging that Imperium had breached its contractual obligations by bringing its patent infringement claim and seeking ongoing royalties in Texas. The company argued that if the Delaware court declined to hear the merits of its claims, the merits of its arguments would never be heard.

But Kearney dismissed the complaint as a “collateral attack” on the Texas action, saying those very issues were up for appeal before the Federal Circuit.

“Samsung is duplicating litigation in Texas,” Kearney wrote.

He continued: “Samsung's defenses, now dressed up as affirmative claims, do not belong in this second filed case. It is litigating these issues before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We decline to jump into a dispute fully litigated before Judge Mazzant.”

Under federal code, attorneys who use U.S. courts to unreasonably bring multiple proceedings for the same underlying conduct are subject to paying fees and expenses associated with the duplicative litigation.

An attorney for Samsung did not return a call Wednesday seeking comment on the ruling, and an attorney for Imperium declined to comment.

The Delaware case was captioned Samsung Electronics v. Imperium IP Holdings.

Imperium was represented by Alan M. Fisch, John T. Battaglia and R. William Sigler of Fisch Sigler and Brian E. Farnan of Farnan LLP.

Samsung was represented by Jesse J. Jenner, Kevin J. Post, Samuel Brenner and Steven Pepe of Ropes & Gray and John W. Shaw and Andrew Russell of Shaw Keller.

Tom McParland can be contacted at 215-557-2485 or at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @TMcParlandTLI.

A federal judge in Delaware on Tuesday criticized Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. for using a Delaware lawsuit to attack a nearly $21 million patent infringement ruling in Texas, saying the same issues are already being considered on appeal.

U.S. District Judge Mark A. Kearney, visiting from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, said the Delaware case was a “classic” example of tactical litigation meant to work around adverse results in other jurisdictions.

“We are not the court of appeals for the Texas district court. Samsung cannot argue here what it already lost in Texas,” Kearney wrote in a strongly worded 11-page memorandum.

The Delaware suit stemmed from a heated infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where Imperium IP Holdings had won a roughly $7 million jury verdict against Samsung for infringing patents for taking photos with an electronic device.

U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant III of the Eastern District of Texas last year tripled the damages in the case, after finding Samsung had willfully infringed and repeatedly lied under oath. Samsung, Mazzant found, had known about Imperium's patents for years and even tried to buy them through a broker before the case began in 2014.

Samsung has appealed those rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Samsung filed its Delaware suit back in November 2015, arguing that Imperium had violated an earlier agreement not to sue over the patents, but former Judge Sue L. Robinson stayed the case while the Texas case proceeded.

Robinson's stay was lifted in 2015, and the electronics giant filed a complaint alleging that Imperium had breached its contractual obligations by bringing its patent infringement claim and seeking ongoing royalties in Texas. The company argued that if the Delaware court declined to hear the merits of its claims, the merits of its arguments would never be heard.

But Kearney dismissed the complaint as a “collateral attack” on the Texas action, saying those very issues were up for appeal before the Federal Circuit.

“Samsung is duplicating litigation in Texas,” Kearney wrote.

He continued: “Samsung's defenses, now dressed up as affirmative claims, do not belong in this second filed case. It is litigating these issues before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We decline to jump into a dispute fully litigated before Judge Mazzant.”

Under federal code, attorneys who use U.S. courts to unreasonably bring multiple proceedings for the same underlying conduct are subject to paying fees and expenses associated with the duplicative litigation.

An attorney for Samsung did not return a call Wednesday seeking comment on the ruling, and an attorney for Imperium declined to comment.

The Delaware case was captioned Samsung Electronics v. Imperium IP Holdings.

Imperium was represented by Alan M. Fisch, John T. Battaglia and R. William Sigler of Fisch Sigler and Brian E. Farnan of Farnan LLP.

Samsung was represented by Jesse J. Jenner, Kevin J. Post, Samuel Brenner and Steven Pepe of Ropes & Gray and John W. Shaw and Andrew Russell of Shaw Keller.

Tom McParland can be contacted at 215-557-2485 or at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @TMcParlandTLI.