A U.S. federal jury has ordered Samsung Electronics to pay $117.7 million in damages to Japanese electronics firm Maxell Ltd., ruling that the South Korean tech giant infringed on key patents tied to smart home platforms and smartphone technology.

The verdict, delivered on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, sided with Maxell’s claims that Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones, tablets, and other electronic devices violated three U.S. patents. These patents cover technology used for unlocking devices, managing data, and reproducing images and videos—features embedded across a wide range of Samsung products.

Although the jury awarded significant damages, the ruling is not final and remains subject to appeal. Samsung is widely expected to contest the decision.

Long-Running Dispute Over Expired License

The legal dispute stems from a licensing agreement signed in 2011 between Samsung and Hitachi Consumer Electronics, the predecessor of Maxell. The deal granted Samsung permission to use 10 patented technologies in its products for 10 years.

That agreement expired in 2021, but Maxell contends that Samsung continued using the protected technologies without renewal. According to court documents, Maxell reached out to Samsung after the expiration to renegotiate terms but was rebuffed. Samsung, the lawsuit alleges, opted to continue incorporating the technologies in devices ranging from SmartThings stations and smartphones to laptops and home appliances.

The alleged infringement prompted Maxell to sue in September 2023, accusing Samsung of violating seven patents in total. This latest ruling relates to only three of the contested patents, with other elements of the case still under review or pending further legal proceedings.

Broader Legal Campaign by Maxell

The case in Texas is part of a multi-jurisdictional offensive by Maxell. Beyond the United States, the company has launched related legal actions in Germany, Japan, and through the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The firm appears to be targeting Samsung’s global footprint in a bid to enforce its intellectual property rights more aggressively.

In April, Maxell filed another lawsuit in Texas against Samsung, citing similar patent violations tied to a new set of devices. The fresh lawsuit underscores Maxell’s determination to hold Samsung accountable across its evolving product lineup.

Samsung’s Patent Challenges in the U.S.

The ruling adds to a growing list of intellectual property disputes Samsung has faced in U.S. courts, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue frequently used by patent holders due to its reputation for being plaintiff-friendly.

Samsung has not publicly commented on the verdict. However, legal experts say the case could serve as a warning to other tech giants that rely heavily on third-party intellectual property for software and hardware development. If the decision stands on appeal, it may force Samsung to either pay licensing fees retroactively or re-engineer parts of its ecosystem to avoid further legal exposure.

For Maxell, a company now focusing more on monetizing its technology portfolio, the verdict is expected to boost its morale to fight for the remaining patents issued to Samsung.

U.S. President Donald Trump is proposing a radical overhaul of the country’s space program that would lean heavily on private companies to lead the first human missions to Mars—while cutting NASA’s overall budget by a quarter, per Bloomberg.

The move sharply aligns with the ambitions of Elon Musk, whose SpaceX has long envisioned colonizing the Red Planet.

In a budget request sent to Congress late Friday, the White House asked for $18.8 billion for NASA in 2026, a steep drop from previous years, but earmarked more than $1 billion specifically for Mars exploration. A centerpiece of the proposal is a new initiative called the Commercial Mars Payload Services Program (CMPS)—modeled after an existing lunar program—that would see NASA award contracts to private companies for critical hardware, such as spacesuits, communications systems, and landing vehicles.

“We must continue to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars,” wrote NASA Acting Administrator Janet Petro in a letter accompanying the budget. “That means making strategic decisions—including scaling back or discontinuing ineffective efforts.”

The proposed shift is part of a broader strategy to privatize core components of U.S. space exploration, cutting back on traditional government-run programs in favor of commercial partnerships. The model reflects the one used for the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program, which has benefited companies like Intuitive Machines, Astrobotic Technology, and Firefly Aerospace, though with uneven success.

Under the new Mars plan, SpaceX could be a major beneficiary. The company is already developing a variant of its Starship rocket for NASA’s Artemis lunar program, and Musk recently reiterated his goal of building a human settlement on Mars during an internal SpaceX briefing.

Trump’s pick to lead NASA, billionaire pilot, and entrepreneur Jared Isaacman, told lawmakers the agency could pursue both the Moon and Mars in parallel, doubling down on a strategy that sidelines the current government-led approach. Isaacman, who flew on a private SpaceX mission in 2021, is known for advocating commercial space exploration.

However, even Isaacman has acknowledged the downsides of the proposed cuts. The budget slashes deeply into NASA’s science programs, drawing criticism from across the space sector.

“It wouldn’t be an optimal outcome,” Isaacman said of the science cuts during recent budget hearings.

Phasing Out Legacy Hardware

Perhaps most controversially, the Trump administration’s budget reveals plans to phase out the Space Launch System (SLS)—a Boeing-built rocket that has cost billions—and the Orion crew capsule developed by Lockheed Martin, after just three flights. These flagship projects have been in development for over a decade and form the backbone of current moon plans.

Instead, the administration wants to pivot toward new commercial missions to the Moon, using a public-private model akin to the one that enabled SpaceX to develop its Falcon 9 rocket and Northrop Grumman to deliver cargo with Cygnus. The White House said this would minimize costs and reduce schedule risks.

But the proposal is expected to face fierce opposition in Congress, especially from lawmakers in states with a deep stake in the legacy NASA programs. Texas Republicans Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Brian Babin, longtime defenders of the SLS and Artemis architecture, are expected to push back against the cuts.

Former Republican lawmakers Newt Gingrich and Bob Walker—both space policy advocates—have publicly criticized the science reductions. Even among conservatives who support space privatization, there is concern that gutting NASA’s research capacity could undermine the long-term mission.

The Mars push, however, underscores how closely the Trump administration’s vision for space mirrors the roadmap drawn up by Musk. And with Isaacman as the agency’s public face, the pivot toward a commercially-led era of U.S. space exploration appears firmly underway—if it can survive the Congress.

Apple has filed an appeal against a European Union order that requires the company to make its iOS operating system more interoperable with rival tech products under the bloc’s sweeping Digital Markets Act (DMA), escalating tensions over how the EU seeks to rein in the power of Big Tech.

The company lodged the appeal on May 30 at the EU’s General Court in Luxembourg, challenging an earlier decision by the European Commission, which told Apple in March how it should open key parts of its iOS system to rival developers and hardware makers. The order is part of broader enforcement under the DMA, which aims to curb gatekeeping practices by dominant digital platforms.

Apple argues that the Commission’s demands go too far. In a statement Monday, the company said the EU’s interoperability requirements “threaten the foundation” of Apple’s integrated ecosystem and could “stifle innovation,” create security vulnerabilities, and compromise user privacy.

“At Apple, we design our technology to work seamlessly together, so it can deliver the unique experience our users love and expect from our products,” a company spokesperson said. “The EU’s interoperability requirements threaten that foundation, while creating a process that is unreasonable, costly, and stifles innovation.”

The Commission’s enforcement under the DMA compels so-called “gatekeepers”—large platforms with entrenched market dominance—to ensure interoperability. In Apple’s case, that includes sharing access to parts of the iOS operating system typically reserved for its own products, such as notifications, connectivity features, and device integration protocols that enable services like pairing with third-party wearables or supporting non-Apple apps on iPhones and iPads.

According to Apple, this means giving competitors access to sensitive system-level functionalities, a move the company says risks compromising user security and data privacy.

“Companies have already requested our users’ most sensitive data—from the content of their notifications to a full history of every stored WiFi network on their device—giving them the ability to access personal information that even Apple doesn’t see,” Apple said, referring to a December 2023 request from Meta Platforms as one of the contentious examples.

The iPhone maker said it is appealing “on behalf of its users” to protect the trusted experience and security that European customers expect from its devices.

European Commission Defends Its Decision

A Commission spokesperson responded Monday, saying the DMA is legally sound and the enforcement decisions issued are “fully in line” with the regulation.

“We will defend them in Court,” the spokesperson said.

The DMA, which came into effect in March 2024, targets large tech companies identified as gatekeepers under strict criteria, including annual revenue and market dominance across digital services. Apple, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, and ByteDance (TikTok) are among those under direct scrutiny.

The law gives Brussels the authority to impose fines of up to 10% of a company’s worldwide annual turnover for violations. In severe or repeated cases, the Commission can go as far as to demand the breakup of parts of a business.

A Broader Fight Over Control and Privacy

Apple’s resistance reflects a broader backlash among U.S. tech giants over how the EU is enforcing the DMA. While the bloc says it is leveling the playing field and promoting competition, companies like Apple say these rules dismantle the user-focused integration that differentiates their products.

The Commission’s March instruction to Apple reportedly focused on a range of interoperability requirements, including how the iPhone interacts with third-party smartwatches, VR headsets, cloud gaming platforms, and apps distributed outside the App Store.

Apple had already begun making changes to its business model in Europe in response to the DMA—such as allowing alternative app stores and payment systems in the EU—but the latest appeal indicates it is not willing to comply without a legal challenge on key issues tied to privacy and ecosystem integrity.

The case now heads to the General Court, where Apple will seek to overturn or limit the EU’s demands. A ruling could take months or even years, but the appeal could delay the full implementation of the Commission’s order in the meantime.