Untitled case

In the Eastern District of Texas, SnapAid Ltd. has brought a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. (collectively, "Samsung"), asserting infringement of eight patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,659,682, all titled "Real Time Assessment of Picture Quality.". These patents generally cover systems and methods designed to provide real-time image quality analysis and immediate user feedback during photo and video capture.. SnapAid, an Israeli plaintiff, alleges that Samsung's smartphones and tablets, specifically their "picture quality functionalities" such as Flaw Detection, Shot Suggestions, and Palm Gesture features, infringe these patents.. While initial court filings identified SnapAid as an "Operating Company," later filings suggest it "has no apparent business operations other than asserting its patent portfolio," which aligns more with a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) model..

The case, filed on April 10, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Case No. 2:25-cv-00378), is currently in litigation.. District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III is presiding, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne managing discovery and other pre-trial matters.. A Markman hearing is set for October 22, 2026, and a jury trial is scheduled for April 19, 2027, highlighting the case's advanced procedural posture.. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation due to its historically patentee-friendly reputation and expedited dockets..

This case is notable for the alleged pre-litigation relationship between the parties. SnapAid claims that in 2015, under a "dual non-disclosure agreement," it disclosed its technology to Samsung and even installed it onto Samsung phones.. SnapAid further alleges that after Samsung declined a partnership or license, the company subsequently released products incorporating the very capabilities SnapAid had disclosed, leading to the current infringement allegations.. Furthermore, there are parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with Samsung filing Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs), including PGR2025-00083 related to one of the asserted patents, where it is challenging the validity of some of SnapAid's patents.. Samsung has also filed a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of ex parte reexaminations for some of the patents, arguing that SnapAid, as a non-competitor, would not be unduly prejudiced by a stay..

This report outlines the key legal developments and current status of the patent infringement litigation, SnapAid, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 2:25-cv-00378, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involving U.S. Patent No. 10,659,682, as well as several other related patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint, Answer, Counterclaims)

• Complaint Filed: SnapAid, Ltd. filed its complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on April 10, 2025, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,659,682 and seven other closely related patents, all titled "Real Time Assessment of Picture Quality." The patents share a common specification and cover systems and methods for real-time image quality analysis.
• Answer & Counterclaims: While the specific date of Samsung's answer and counterclaims is not explicitly listed in the immediate search results, an exhibit in a PTAB filing references "Samsung's Answer and" (presumably Answer and Counterclaims) in the district court case. Samsung also filed Invalidity Contentions dated December 1, 2025.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Docket Control and Discovery Orders: On September 24, 2025, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne signed an Agreed Docket Control Order and a Discovery Order, setting the schedule for the case.
• Motion to Amend Infringement Contentions: On May 13, 2026, the Court granted SnapAid's unopposed motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions to supplement P.R. 3-2 disclosures, based on newly discovered documents and evidence related to reduction to practice and conception of the patents-in-suit.
• Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination: On May 12, 2026, Samsung filed a motion to stay the district court litigation pending ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 10,659,682, as well as the '226 and '537 patents. Reexamination was ordered for these patents based on findings of numerous substantial new questions of patentability (SNQs) in view of prior art references not considered during original prosecution. The motion highlights that the Markman hearing is still over five months away and trial is nearly a year out (April 2027).

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• A Markman hearing is currently scheduled for October 22, 2026, or October 30, 2026, before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. As of the current date (May 26, 2026), no claim construction outcome has been reached.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• An Agreed Discovery Order was signed on September 24, 2025.
• Fact discovery is scheduled to close on November 16, 2026.
• Plaintiff's infringement contentions were amended on May 13, 2026, following the discovery of new evidence.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• Trial is currently scheduled to begin with jury selection on April 19, 2027, before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. No trial events have occurred yet.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The case is currently active and ongoing ("Open" status). There has been no settlement, dismissal, or judgment to date.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• IPR/PGR Petitions: Samsung filed multiple petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging several of the asserted patents, including Post-Grant Review (PGR) for U.S. Patent No. 12,250,452 (PGR2025-00083) and Inter Partes Review (IPR) for U.S. Patent No. 11,671,702 (IPR2025-01520).
• Requests for Discretionary Denial: SnapAid, the patent owner, filed requests for discretionary denial of Samsung's IPR/PGR petitions. SnapAid argued that Samsung waited until litigation was underway to file these petitions, challenged only five of the eight asserted patents (those issued within the last six years), and that the Board's decisions would only issue one month before the scheduled district court trial, offering no significant efficiency gains. SnapAid also highlighted inconsistent claim construction positions taken by Samsung in the district court litigation compared to the PTAB proceedings. The search results do not explicitly state the outcome of these discretionary denial requests, but the filings demonstrate active PTAB proceedings.
• Ex Parte Reexamination: Separate from the IPR/PGRs, ex parte reexamination was ordered for U.S. Patent No. 10,659,682, as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 9,661,226 ('226 patent) and 9,338,348 ('537 patent, though one source uses '348, another '537). These reexaminations were initiated based on findings of substantial new questions of patentability in light of prior art not previously considered by the USPTO. Samsung's recent motion to stay the district court litigation is predicated on these ongoing reexamination proceedings.

SnapAid Ltd. is represented by several attorneys from different firms.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for SnapAid Ltd.:

Lead Counsel:

• Michael Shore

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: The Shore Firm (formerly Shore Chan DePumpo LLP), Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Michael Shore specializes in intellectual property commercialization and business litigation, with extensive experience in patent and copyright portfolios, licensing, and litigation. He has represented clients from Fortune 500 companies to individuals. His firm has secured significant patent verdicts.

• Melissa R. Smith

  • Role: Lead Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Melissa Smith is an experienced trial lawyer in the Eastern District of Texas, handling both plaintiff and defendant-side cases in state and federal courts. She has achieved numerous successful verdicts in patent litigation and has served as local counsel in thousands of patent cases. She has been recognized as a Texas Superlawyer multiple times.

• Johnny Ward

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry, PLLC), Longview, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Johnny Ward is a distinguished trial lawyer in East Texas with a national reputation for high-stakes litigation, including patent infringement and trade secret cases. He has secured major courtroom victories against notable companies such as Apple and Samsung.

• Wesley Hill

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry, PLLC), Longview, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Wesley Hill is a veteran of East Texas courts who has successfully tried numerous cases to verdict, including over a dozen patent infringement trials.

Of Counsel / Local Counsel:

• Michael C. Smith

  • Role: Of Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: Scheef & Stone, LLP, Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Michael C. Smith is a partner whose practice focuses on complex commercial and patent litigation in federal court, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas. He has appeared as counsel of record in over 900 civil cases in the Eastern District of Texas and maintains a weblog tracking news and caselaw from the district.

• T. John Ward

  • Role: Of Counsel (Former U.S. District Court Judge)
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry, PLLC), Longview, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Judge T. John Ward served as a U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas for 12 years, presiding over hundreds of patent cases and claim construction hearings, making him highly experienced in intellectual property matters.

• Andrea Fair (formerly Andrea Smith)

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry, PLLC (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC), Longview, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Andrea Fair is recognized for excellence in intellectual property litigation, having secured significant jury verdicts in patent infringement cases.

Other listed counsel (roles may vary):

• Daniel Chan

  • Firm: Shore Chan DePumpo, LLP, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Daniel Chan is a partner at Shore Chan DePumpo LLP, practicing in intellectual property commercialization, business litigation, and other litigation matters.

• Christopher L. Evans

  • Firm: Shore Chan DePumpo LLP, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Christopher Evans is a partner who has been litigating patent cases for over nine years and has extensive experience with Markman hearings and other patent-related proceedings.

These attorneys collectively bring substantial experience in patent litigation, particularly within the Eastern District of Texas, which is a common characteristic for plaintiff's counsel in this venue.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") are represented by a team of attorneys from several firms, including lead counsel, local counsel, and in-house counsel.

Lead & Outside Counsel

• Melissa R. Smith - Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall, Texas)
  • Experience: Gillam & Smith is a litigation boutique with extensive experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in federal court patent infringement litigation throughout Texas. The firm has a strong track record in intellectual property disputes and has been recognized among the busiest law firms for patent litigation defendants.
• Peter Jason Evangelatos - Pro Hac Vice Attorney
  • Firm: (Not specified in search results, but appeared pro hac vice)
  • Experience: Appeared on behalf of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• W. Todd Baker - Outside Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Specific office not specified, but firm is multinational)
  • Experience: Kirkland & Ellis is a prominent firm often involved in patent litigation.
• William M. Fink - Lead Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Washington, DC office)
  • Experience: Lead counsel for Samsung in parallel PTAB proceedings, demonstrating expertise in patentability challenges.
• Brian Cook - Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Los Angeles, CA office)
  • Experience: Back-up counsel for Samsung in parallel PTAB proceedings.
• Nicholas Whilt - Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Los Angeles, CA office)
  • Experience: Back-up counsel for Samsung in parallel PTAB proceedings.
• Benjamin Haber - Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Los Angeles, CA office)
  • Experience: Back-up counsel for Samsung in parallel PTAB proceedings.
• Caitlin Hogan - Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (New York, NY office)
  • Experience: Back-up counsel for Samsung in parallel PTAB proceedings.
• Raj Paul - Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Washington, DC office)
  • Experience: Back-up counsel for Samsung in parallel PTAB proceedings.

In-House Counsel

• Tim Jezek - Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics America (in-house)
  • Experience: Focuses on IP litigation and related policy issues, with over two decades of experience in both in-house and law firm settings.
• Phillip Lee - Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics US IP Center (in-house)
  • Experience: Veteran litigator with substantial experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing across various technologies. He manages patent case dockets with outside counsel, negotiates settlements, and advises on IP matters.
• Matthew Bathon - Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics (in-house)
  • Experience: Coordinates Samsung's ITC and district court dockets and has prior experience as a partner at Steptoe LLP, focusing on ITC Section 337 investigations and district court IP disputes across diverse technologies.
• Jae-Il Park - Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (in-house)
  • Experience: Listed as Legal Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in PTAB filings.

It is worth noting that some search results discuss former Samsung in-house counsel involved in a separate lawsuit against Samsung, which was dismissed due to alleged theft of privileged information. However, these individuals are not listed as counsel of record in the present SnapAid v. Samsung case.