Untitled case

In a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:25-cv-00667, Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (Network-1) has accused Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its affiliate Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of infringing U.S. Patent 11,233,780, among others. Network-1 Technologies, Inc. is a publicly traded company that acquires, develops, and licenses intellectual property, often classified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE). Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a major global operating company specializing in electronics, including a wide range of semiconductor products like DRAM and flash memory chips. The lawsuit targets Samsung's alleged infringement through various products, likely related to memory modules and potentially technology used in cloud computing and AI applications, given the patent's subject matter and Network-1's general assertion patterns. U.S. Patent 11,233,780, titled "Methods and Apparatuses for Reducing Heat Loss from Edge...", generally relates to innovations in memory module design, specifically addressing heat management.

The case is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, and is presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known and historically popular venue for patent litigation, often referred to as a "rocket docket" due to its reputation for rapid case adjudication and plaintiff-friendly verdicts. The court also has specific local rules for patent cases and judges experienced in handling such disputes, which can expedite trials. This venue choice is notable for its potential to accelerate the litigation process and has seen a resurgence in patent filings in recent years.

This litigation is part of a broader trend of patent assertion in the high-stakes memory and semiconductor industry, where companies like Network-1 (and Netlist, which has extensive litigation history with Samsung and SK Hynix over memory patents) seek to enforce their intellectual property against large manufacturers. While specific details about unique noteworthiness for this exact case (2:25-cv-00667) beyond the general venue characteristics are not immediately apparent, the ongoing nature of Network-1's assertions against a major industry player like Samsung, and the technical area of memory modules, indicates its significance within the broader patent landscape. The docket shows that a claim construction hearing is scheduled for December 14, 2026, and a jury selection for June 7, 2027, indicating the case is progressing towards trial.

The patent infringement litigation, Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 2:25-cv-00667, is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The case involves US Patent 11,233,780.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

• 2025-06-27 – Complaint Filed: Plaintiff Network-1 Technologies, Inc. filed its initial Complaint for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc..
• 2025-10-15 – Discovery Order Issued: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap signed a Discovery Order in the case.
• 2025-10-21 – Protective Order Issued: A Protective Order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2025-10-22 – First Amended Complaint Filed: Network-1 Technologies, Inc. filed an Amended Complaint, which remains the operative pleading in the case.
• 2025-10-28 – Motion to Dismiss Denied: A Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 25) filed by the defendants was denied by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2025-11-05 – Answer and Counterclaims Filed: Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint and asserted Counterclaims against Network-1 Technologies, Inc..
• 2025-11-26 – IPR Petition Filed for US 11,233,780: Samsung Electronics America Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR2026-00114) of US Patent 11,233,780 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• 2026-01-13 – Motion to Focus Asserted Patent Claims Filed: Samsung filed an "Opposed Motion to Focus Asserted Patent Claims" (Dkt. No. 48).
• 2026-04-23 – Motion to Focus Asserted Patent Claims Denied: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied Samsung's motion to focus asserted patent claims without prejudice (Dkt. No. 63). The court noted that a renewed motion could be filed if appropriate and material narrowing had not occurred during the natural progression of the case, no sooner than 75 days from the order date.
• 2026-05-06 – PTAB Declines to Institute IPR2026-00114: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision of "Not Instituted - Merits" for IPR2026-00114 concerning US Patent 11,233,780, meaning Samsung's petition for IPR was not granted.

Upcoming Milestones (as of 2026-05-29):

• 2026-08-10 – Claim Construction Process Begins: The parties are scheduled to commence the claim construction process.
• 2026-12-14 – Markman Hearing: A Markman (claim construction) hearing is set to take place in Marshall, Texas, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• Post-Markman – Mediation Consideration: The Court has ordered that within fourteen days of the claim construction order, the parties are to file a Joint Notice indicating whether the case should be referred for mediation.
• 2027-01-19 – Fact Discovery Deadline: The deadline to complete fact discovery and file motions to compel is set.
• 2027-02-22 – Expert Discovery Deadline: The deadline to complete expert discovery is set.
• 2027-03-01 – Dispositive Motions and Motions to Strike Expert Testimony Deadline: These motions, including Daubert motions, cannot be filed after this date without leave of the Court.

The case remains in active litigation, progressing through pre-trial stages with significant upcoming deadlines for claim construction and discovery. There has been no final judgment or settlement to date.

Plaintiff Network-1 Technologies, Inc. is represented by a team of experienced patent litigators from three law firms: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Miller Fair Henry PLLC, and Alavi Anaipakos PLLC.

Here is the counsel of record for the plaintiff:

Heim Payne & Chorush LLP (Houston, TX)

• Michael F. Heim
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Heim is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.
• Eric J. Enger
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Enger is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.
• William B. Collier, Jr.
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Collier is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.
• R. Allan Bullwinkel
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Bullwinkel is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX)

(Formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, the firm rebranded to Miller Fair Henry PLLC effective October 1, 2024.)

• Claire A. Henry
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX
  • Experience Note: Ms. Henry represents plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes patent litigation matters in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.
• Andrea L. Fair
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX
  • Experience Note: Ms. Fair is recognized for excellence in intellectual property litigation and has secured significant jury verdicts in patent infringement cases.
• T. John Ward
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX
  • Experience Note: A former United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Ward presided over hundreds of patent cases and numerous claim construction hearings during his tenure.
• Charles Everingham IV
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX
  • Experience Note: A former magistrate judge, Mr. Everingham is recognized for his work in patent litigation.

Alavi Anaipakos PLLC (Houston, TX)

(Also known as Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos, P.C. or Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing.)

• Amir H. Alavi
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Alavi is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.
• Michael McBride
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. McBride is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.
• Masood Anjom
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Anjom is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.
• Steven T. Jugle
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Jugle is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.
• Connie Jones
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Ms. Jones is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.
• Christopher R. Pinckney
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Pinckney is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.
• Demetrios Anaipakos
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX
  • Experience Note: Mr. Anaipakos is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in this patent infringement case.

The defendant(s) in case 2:25-cv-00667 are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. Their counsel of record includes attorneys from Gillam & Smith LLP and O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Here is the identified counsel for the defendant(s):

Gillam & Smith LLP

• Melissa R. Smith
  • Role: Counsel (likely local counsel or lead counsel, as the firm has deep East Texas roots and represents both plaintiffs and defendants in patent and commercial cases).
  • Firm & Office Location: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, Texas.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Gillam & Smith attorneys are experienced trial lawyers who represent clients in patent, commercial, and personal injury cases, and are sought out for their legal counsel and courtroom expertise in sensitive and critical cases.

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

• Jonathan Clark

  • Role: Counsel (appears to have made a pro hac vice appearance).
  • Firm & Office Location: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (specific office not detailed in available snippets, but the firm has offices across the US).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: O'Melveny & Myers is a major firm that handles complex litigation, including patent cases.

• Laura M. Burson

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (specific office not detailed in available snippets).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: O'Melveny & Myers is known for its intellectual property practice.

• Nicholas J. Whilt

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: O'Melveny & Myers is known for its intellectual property practice.

• Marc J. Pensabene

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (specific office not detailed in available snippets).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: O'Melveny & Myers has a significant patent litigation practice.

• Ryan K. Yagura

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: O'Melveny & Myers is known for its intellectual property practice, and Yagura is specifically listed with a Los Angeles office in one source.