Untitled case

This patent infringement lawsuit, case number 2:24-cv-00828, is unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The plaintiff, VB Assets, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company and a known Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE). VB Assets was formed by former employees and investors of VoiceBox Technologies, an early pioneer in conversational AI and speech recognition. The defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a Korean corporation, and its U.S. subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., both major operating companies in the consumer electronics sector.

The core of the dispute centers on Samsung's Bixby 2.0 voice assistant and a wide array of supporting devices and services. The accused products include various Galaxy smartphones (such as the Note 9, S series, Note series, Fold, Z Fold, and Z Flip), Galaxy tablets, earbuds, smartwatches, Samsung smart TVs, Family Hubs, other Samsung appliances, and sound bars, along with the underlying cloud infrastructure that powers Bixby 2.0. [cite: 1 (from previous search), 3 (from previous search), 12 (from previous search), 15 (from previous search)] Among the patents asserted by VB Assets in this complaint are U.S. Patent No. 10,755,699, which generally describes techniques for managing a conversational user interface across multiple domains by determining a request's domain, identifying a conversational state for that domain, and generating a response based on this information. Other VoiceBox patents asserted in the lawsuit include U.S. Patent Nos. 8,515,765, 8,073,681, 8,321,215, 8,914,269, and 9,153,249. [cite: 12 (from previous search), 15 (from previous search)]

The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, particularly favored by plaintiffs due to its experienced judges, established patent local rules, and historically expeditious trial schedules. Judge Gilstrap, presiding over this case, is known for his extensive patent docket. [cite: 2 (from previous search), 3 (from previous search), 4 (from previous search), 9 (from previous search)] This case is notable given VB Assets' history as an NPE, having previously secured a significant jury verdict against Amazon for infringement of related VoiceBox patents, which was later adjusted by the court. [cite: 2 (from previous search), 4 (from previous search), 5 (from previous search)] While other patents in VB Assets' portfolio have been challenged through Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), such as U.S. Patent Nos. 8,515,765 and 8,073,681 by Samsung, no IPR has been publicly identified for U.S. Patent No. 10,755,699 based on current searches. [cite: 5, 6, 7, 10, 11 (from previous search)] The litigation highlights ongoing disputes over fundamental conversational AI and voice assistant technologies in the competitive consumer electronics market.

Case Summary: VB Assets, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:24-cv-00828 (E.D. Tex.)

This is a patent infringement litigation filed by VB Assets, LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The case is currently active with future scheduled events.

Patents at Issue:
The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681, 8,515,765, 8,886,536, and 10,755,699. These patents generally relate to cooperative conversational voice user interfaces and promotional content based on natural language utterances, implicated by Samsung's Bixby 2.0 products.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: VB Assets, LLC filed its complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on October 9, 2024.
  • Answer & Counterclaims: Samsung filed an Answer and Counterclaim in the litigation. Samsung also agreed to waive service under the Hague Convention.

• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

  • A Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Docket Control Order was filed by VB Assets, LLC, which was terminated on February 5, 2025.
  • No specific substantive motions to dismiss (e.g., under Rule 12(b)(6) for patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101), motions to transfer venue, or motions to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of parallel IPR proceedings have been publicly reported or identified in the available search results for this specific case.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • A Markman Hearing (Claim Construction Hearing) is scheduled for January 14, 2026, before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • While specific detailed discovery milestones are not publicly available without direct PACER access, the existence of invalidity contentions relating to at least one of the asserted patents (U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681) has been noted in related PTAB proceedings, indicating that discovery is underway.

• Trial Events:

  • A Pretrial Conference is set for June 2, 2026, before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
  • Jury Selection is scheduled for July 6, 2026, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

• Final Disposition or Present Posture:

  • The case remains active in the Eastern District of Texas, with scheduled Markman and trial dates in 2026. An earlier PacerMonitor entry indicating a "terminated" status on November 12, 2025, appears to be an error given the subsequent court schedule.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions have been filed challenging the validity of the asserted patents:
    • IPR2025-00866 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681.
    • IPR2025-00868 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,515,765.
    • IPR2025-00869 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536.
    • IPR2025-00871 challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,755,699.
  • The specific institution decisions or final written decisions for these IPRs are not detailed in the publicly available search results. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) began issuing Notices of Decisions on Institution for IPRs and PGRs around December 1, 2025, but the specific outcomes for these IPRs are not yet readily available through general web search. The PTAB's recent policy changes regarding discretionary denials, including considerations of "settled expectations" and parallel litigation, could influence the outcomes of these IPRs.

Outcome:
The litigation is ongoing, with significant pre-trial and trial events scheduled for 2026. The parallel IPR proceedings have been initiated but their ultimate impact on the district court litigation remains to be seen, pending institution decisions and any potential stays.

VB Assets, LLC, the plaintiff in VB Assets, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:24-cv-00828), is represented by a team of attorneys from Alston & Bird LLP and Greenbaum Law LLC, with local counsel from Gillam & Smith, LLP.

Here is the breakdown of the identified counsel:

Alston & Bird LLP

• Theodore Stevenson, III
  • Role: Lead Counsel (expected, given firm's involvement and his experience)
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Note: Mr. Stevenson is a highly experienced patent litigator, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, known for his work on behalf of plaintiffs in complex patent infringement cases.
• Erik John Carlson
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP
  • Note: Erik Carlson is a partner at Alston & Bird focusing on patent litigation, with experience representing both patentees and accused infringers across various technologies.
• Srishti Ghosh
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP
  • Note: Srishti Ghosh is an attorney at Alston & Bird with experience in patent litigation, including in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Caleb J. Bean
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP
  • Note: Caleb Bean is an associate at Alston & Bird, contributing to intellectual property litigation matters.
• Natalie C. Clayton
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP
  • Note: Natalie Clayton is an associate at Alston & Bird, practicing in intellectual property.
• Brady Randall Cox
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP
  • Note: Brady Cox is an attorney at Alston & Bird involved in intellectual property and patent litigation.
• Lauren Nichole Griffin
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP
  • Note: Lauren Griffin is an attorney at Alston & Bird, focusing on intellectual property litigation.

Greenbaum Law LLC

• David Greenbaum
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Greenbaum Law LLC, Washington, D.C. (based on firm information, specific office not found for this case)
  • Note: David Greenbaum is recognized for his patent litigation work and has appeared on complaints for VB Assets in other related cases.

Gillam & Smith, LLP

• Melissa Richards Smith
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP, Tyler, TX
  • Note: Ms. Smith is a well-known and highly experienced local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas for patent cases.

The search results confirm that Darryl M. Woo has appeared in case 2:24-cv-00828 in the Eastern District of Texas. Given that the case is "VB Assets, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al," it is highly probable he represents Samsung. His firm is Goodwin. His office location is San Francisco, CA.

His relevant patent litigation experience includes representing clients in high-profile and "bet-the-company" litigation in district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC). He was counsel for the original Napster and defended Google Earth from patent attacks. He also secured a $74.7 million jury verdict for a semiconductor industry client. He is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America 2026 for Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Law, and Patent Litigation. He also has extensive experience in various technologies, including semiconductors, information technology, life sciences, and biotechnology.

While the snippets provide information on in-house counsel for Samsung (Matthew Bathon and Phillip Lee as Principal Legal Counsel at Samsung Electronics), they are not specifically listed as counsel of record appearing in this particular case's docket in the provided search results. Similarly, while Melissa Richards Smith is mentioned in other Judge Gilstrap patent cases for defendants, and DLA Piper for another Samsung case in EDTX [cite: 2 in previous thought], I don't have direct evidence of their appearance in this specific 2:24-cv-00828 case from the current search results.

Therefore, I will only list Darryl M. Woo as confirmed counsel of record.

Counsel of Record Representing Defendant(s) (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.)

• Name: Darryl M. Woo
• Role: Of Counsel (likely lead counsel or senior counsel in a large litigation team)
• Firm: Goodwin, San Francisco, CA
• Experience: Veteran first-chair IP trial lawyer with extensive experience in patent litigation, including cases involving semiconductors, information technology, and high-profile clients like Napster and Google Earth. He has successfully tried numerous cases to verdict in district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC), including securing a $74.7 million jury verdict for a semiconductor client.