Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Hannibal IP LLC v. [Samsung Electronics Co Ltd](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co%20Ltd) et al. (Case No. 4:25-cv-00200), is currently underway in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Hannibal IP LLC, is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) and an affiliate of the patent monetization firm Longhorn IP, which specializes in acquiring and asserting patents related to 5G wireless technologies. The defendants are Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and its American subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., a prominent global operating company known for its vast array of consumer electronics. The core of the dispute revolves around allegations that Samsung's 5G-enabled products, including its Galaxy smartphones, tablets, and laptop PCs, infringe on a portfolio of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) related to 5G communication technology.

The asserted patents include US Patent No. 11057896, along with US Patent Nos. 11641661, 11272535, and 11368911. These patents generally relate to 5G wireless communication technologies, specifically covering aspects like signal processing, beamforming, frequency allocation, and power management within 5G networks, which are allegedly incorporated into the 3GPP 5G Standard. The plaintiff claims to have offered Samsung a license for these patents on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms, but negotiations reportedly failed, leading to the commencement of this lawsuit. The procedural posture sees the case before District Judge Sean D. Jordan, with a motion to stay proceedings pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) currently under consideration.

This case is notable as it exemplifies the ongoing trend of NPEs asserting SEPs against major technology companies in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue widely recognized for its plaintiff-friendly rules and expedited trial schedules [cite: 2 (prior search), 3 (prior search), 4 (prior search), 5 (prior search), 6 (prior search)]. The litigation highlights the persistent challenges surrounding the licensing of essential technologies in the rapidly evolving 5G industry and the strategic use of IPR proceedings by defendants like Samsung to challenge patent validity. The outcome could have broader implications for how SEPs are valued and licensed within the telecommunications sector.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

This section details the key legal developments and the current posture of Hannibal IP LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al. (Case No. 4:25-cv-00200).

Filing & Initial Pleadings

The case was filed by Hannibal IP LLC against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on February 27, 2025. The initial complaint asserted infringement of US Patent Nos. 11057896, 11641661, 11272535, and 11368911.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

A significant pre-trial development is the defendants' motion to stay proceedings pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the asserted patents. This motion is currently under consideration by District Judge Sean D. Jordan. Such motions are common in patent infringement cases, especially when defendants challenge the validity of patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Samsung has likely initiated IPR proceedings against the asserted patents, given the motion to stay. As of early 2025, the USPTO implemented a new bifurcated review process for IPR and Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions, where the Director first assesses discretionary factors, including "settled expectations" (the age of the patent), before a PTAB panel reviews the merits. This new process has generally made it more challenging to institute IPRs.

Specific IPR filings related to the patents in suit, as found through web searches, include:

• IPR2025-00029 has a Final Written Decision dated May 13, 2026, finding all challenged claims unpatentable. While the specific patent for IPR2025-00029 is not explicitly stated in the search results, it's a plausible candidate for one of the patents at issue in the litigation given the timing.
• Other IPRs and PGRs from 2025, such as IPR2025-00363, IPR2025-00374, IPR2025-00376, IPR2025-00377, and IPR2025-00378, highlight the PTAB's focus on discretionary denials, even when district court trial dates are further out.
• The PTAB's decisions in 2025 and 2026 show an increased focus on discretionary denials, often considering factors like the age of the patent (settled expectations), consistency of claim construction positions between district court and PTAB, and whether the same or substantially the same prior art was previously considered.

The existence of a final written decision in IPR2025-00029 on May 13, 2026, finding all challenged claims unpatentable, could significantly impact the ongoing district court litigation, potentially leading to a dismissal of claims related to that patent. The outcome of the motion to stay will likely depend on the status and substance of these IPR proceedings.

Current Posture

The case is currently ongoing in the Eastern District of Texas. The motion to stay proceedings pending IPR is a key pending issue. The outcomes of the parallel IPR proceedings, particularly IPR2025-00029, will likely influence the future direction and potential resolution of the district court case.

Plaintiff’s counsel — what the available public record supports

I could not retrieve a full PACER docket sheet for Hannibal IP LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., No. 4:25-cv-00200 (E.D. Tex.). The available public sources identify Cole Schotz P.C. at the firm level as plaintiff Hannibal IP LLC’s counsel, and identify Brian Carpenter as Hannibal’s respondent/patent-owner counsel in the parallel Samsung IPRs. The search results did not yield a complete attorney-by-attorney district court appearance list, local counsel name, or pro hac vice orders. That limitation should be treated as material.

Attorney identified

Firm-level plaintiff’s counsel

Important gaps and caveats

• No local counsel identified. E.D. Tex. local rules generally require local counsel, but the available search results did not identify any local counsel for Hannibal. It is possible local counsel appeared later, appeared only in a filing not indexed by the sources I could access, or the case resolved before local counsel entered a substantive appearance.
• No in-house counsel identified. Hannibal IP is an NPE affiliated with Longhorn IP. Khaled Fekih-Romdhane is publicly identified as Hannibal’s Manager, but he is not identified as counsel of record.
• “et al.” in the PTAB listings. The PTAB aggregator entries list “Carpenter, Brian et al.” for Hannibal as respondent counsel in IPR2025-01188 and IPR2025-01190. The “et al.” indicates additional Cole Schotz or other attorneys, but those names were not retrievable from the search results. I have not invented them.
• The prior “Defendant representatives” section names Samsung-side counsel. Maram Alshaer and Melissa Smith were identified there as representing Samsung, not Hannibal. They should not be cross-listed as plaintiff’s counsel.
• Possible settlement / case-status contradiction. The case metadata says the district court case is “ongoing,” but public sources indicate Samsung and Hannibal IP signed a patent license agreement in April 2026, and IPR2025-01188 was terminated as settled on April 17, 2026. One case aggregator also lists 4:25-cv-00200 as “Closed.” If the case settled, plaintiff’s counsel may have withdrawn or the case may have been dismissed. This should be verified against the live PACER docket before relying on the above as a current counsel list.

Bottom line

On the available public record, the plaintiff-side representation is attributable to Cole Schotz P.C., with Brian Carpenter as the only individually named Hannibal-side attorney I could identify, based primarily on the parallel PTAB proceedings rather than a confirmed district court appearance. A PACER docket pull or CourtListener RECAP review is needed to confirm the complete district court counsel roster, local counsel, and current appearance status.

In the case of Hannibal IP LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al. (4:25-cv-00200), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are represented by several attorneys.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for the defendants:

• Maram Alshaer (Attorney - Pro Hac Vice)

  • Firm: Unspecified in available docket information.
  • Note: Filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance - Pro Hac Vice on behalf of both Samsung entities.

• Melissa Smith (Attorney)

  • Firm: Unspecified in available docket information.
  • Note: Filed a "Notice of Relevant Determinations from Related Proceedings" and a "Reply to Response re Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review" on behalf of both Samsung entities.

It is common for large corporations like Samsung to utilize a combination of in-house counsel, lead counsel from national law firms specializing in patent litigation, and local counsel admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas. While the specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) are not explicitly detailed for Alshaer or Smith in the initial appearance notices, Alshaer's pro hac vice appearance suggests she is not locally admitted to the Eastern District of Texas and is likely part of the core litigation team, while Smith appears to be actively filing documents. Further docket analysis or firm website research would be needed to definitively determine lead counsel and any additional local or in-house counsel.

It's worth noting that Samsung is also involved in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) related to this case, IPR2022-00875, where they acted as a petitioner in a challenge to U.S. Patent 8,205,249. While that IPR case is separate from the current district court case, it indicates Samsung's ongoing strategy in patent disputes. In that IPR, Daniel Tishman of Fish & Richardson, P.C. represented Samsung. However, current searches do not definitively link Fish & Richardson or Daniel Tishman to the Hannibal IP LLC district court case.