Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00378, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on April 10, 2025. The plaintiff, SnapAid Ltd., is described as a patent owner and operating company in the communications sector. The defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its affiliate, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The dispute revolves around technology related to the "Real time assessment of picture quality." SnapAid alleges that Samsung's products infringe eight closely related U.S. patents, including US Patent 11,252,325, all sharing a common specification and covering systems and methods for real-time image quality analysis to provide immediate feedback during photo and video capture.

The accused products or services by Samsung are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, but the nature of the patents suggests they involve devices or software related to image capture and processing, likely within Samsung's consumer electronics, such as smartphones. The lawsuit claims that Samsung released products incorporating capabilities previously disclosed to them by SnapAid under a Non-Disclosure Agreement, after which SnapAid initiated infringement allegations.

The case is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent plaintiffs due to various factors, including its reputation for being plaintiff-friendly and its commitment to bringing cases to trial quickly. While there was a decline in filings following the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision in 2017, the EDTX has seen a resurgence and was the top patent district for overall litigation and NPE litigation in Q1 2026. This case is notable as it involves an assertion against a major technology company by a patent owner, with the underlying allegations stemming from prior business discussions and an NDA. It also involves parallel Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings at the PTAB, initiated by Samsung, challenging some of the asserted patents, with a district court trial currently set for April 2027. SnapAid has opposed the institution of these PGRs, arguing that the district court will resolve all issues, including validity, infringement, and damages, for all eight patents.

The patent infringement litigation case, SnapAid, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00378-RWS-RSP, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit asserts eight closely related U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent 11,252,325, all titled "Real Time Assessment of Picture Quality."

Here are the key legal developments and the current posture of the case:

Chronological Legal Developments:

• 2025-04-10: Complaint Filed
  SnapAid, Ltd. filed a civil action in the Eastern District of Texas, initiating the patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• 2025-08-04: Answer and Counterclaims Filed
  Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed their Answer and Counterclaims to SnapAid's complaint.
• 2025-09-24: Docket Control Order Issued
  Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne signed a Docket Control Order for the case. This order sets various deadlines and hearing dates, including for Markman and trial.
• 2025-11-17: Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial of IPR/PGR Petitions
  SnapAid, as the patent owner, filed requests with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for discretionary denial of institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions filed by Samsung against some of the asserted patents (e.g., IPR20201520 for U.S. 11,671,702 and PGR20200083 for U.S. Patent 2,250,452). SnapAid argued against institution, citing Samsung's long-standing knowledge of the patent family since 2015, the "fragmented" nature of Samsung's challenges (only five of the eight asserted patents were challenged at the PTAB), and the advanced stage of the district court litigation with a trial set for April 2027. The PTAB's new interim process, effective March 26, 2025, and formal new procedures, effective October 20, 2025, allow for separate briefing on discretionary denial.
• 2025-12-01: Samsung's Invalidity Contentions Filed
  Samsung filed its Invalidity Contentions in the district court litigation.
• 2026-01-05: Patent Owner's Sur-Reply to Discretionary Denial Requests
  SnapAid filed a Sur-Reply at the PTAB, further arguing for discretionary denial of Samsung's IPR/PGR petitions. SnapAid highlighted Samsung's allegedly inconsistent claim construction positions, asserting indefiniteness in the district court while arguing for plain and ordinary meaning or no construction needed at the PTAB for the same claim phrases.
• 2026-05-13: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions Granted
  The Court granted SnapAid's unopposed motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions to supplement P.R. 3-2 disclosures. SnapAid indicated that a thorough investigation uncovered previously undiscovered documents relevant to the reduction to practice and conception of the patents-in-suit.

Key Upcoming Milestones:

• 2026-09-XX: Markman Briefing Due
  Markman briefing on indefiniteness is scheduled to be due in September 2026.
• 2026-10-22: Markman Hearing Scheduled
  A Markman hearing is scheduled for October 22, 2026, at 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.
• 2027-04-19: Jury Selection and Trial Scheduled
  Jury selection is set for April 19, 2027, at 09:00 AM, with the trial to follow before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III.

Current Posture:

The case is currently in the pre-trial phase, actively undergoing discovery and motion practice. A Markman hearing is scheduled for late 2026, and a jury trial is set for April 2027. The outcome of Samsung's motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination and the PTAB's institution decisions regarding Samsung's IPR/PGR petitions are not explicitly stated in the provided information. U.S. Patent 11,252,325 is part of the ongoing district court litigation, but it is not explicitly mentioned as being subject to a parallel PTAB proceeding in the provided search results, suggesting it might be one of the patents not challenged at the PTAB.

The plaintiff, SnapAid Ltd., in SnapAid, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00378, is represented by attorneys from Steptoe & Johnson LLP and Miller Fair Henry PLLC.

Here is the counsel of record for SnapAid Ltd.:

• James R. Nuttall

  • Role: Attorney in Charge
  • Firm: Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • Office Location: Washington, D.C. (Steptoe's main IP office) or Dallas, TX (Steptoe has a Dallas office, which could be relevant for EDTX cases). Further search is needed to confirm the specific office for his EDTX appearances.
  • Note: James Nuttall is known for his extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, and for representing patent owners in complex disputes.

• Jacob T. Michalakes

  • Role: Appearing Counsel
  • Firm: Steptoe & Johnson LLP
  • Office Location: Likely Washington, D.C. or Dallas, TX.
  • Note: As part of Steptoe's IP team, Michalakes focuses on patent litigation across various technologies.

• James Winn

  • Role: Appearing Counsel
  • Firm: Steptoe & Johnson LLP (also listed as Steptoe LLC in some results)
  • Office Location: Likely Washington, D.C. or Dallas, TX.
  • Note: James Winn is involved in patent litigation matters, working with the Steptoe IP group.

• Claire A. Henry

  • Role: Appearing Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
  • Office Location: Marshall, Texas (consistent with local counsel practice in EDTX).
  • Note: Claire Henry is a prominent local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, frequently representing plaintiffs in patent infringement cases.

• Charles Everingham, IV

  • Role: Appearing Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
  • Office Location: Marshall, Texas.
  • Note: Charles Everingham IV is a patent litigation attorney often serving as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are represented by a team of in-house and outside counsel in SnapAid, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00378. The outside counsel primarily include attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis LLP and local counsel firms in the Eastern District of Texas. Additionally, several attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers LLP are representing Samsung in parallel PTAB proceedings.

Here is the counsel of record for the defendant(s):

In-House Counsel:

• Matthew Bathon
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics
  • Note: Coordinates Samsung's International Trade Commission (ITC) and district court dockets and focuses on Section 337 investigations and intellectual property (IP) disputes across various technologies.
• Phillip Lee
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics US IP Center
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics
  • Note: A veteran litigator with experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing across a wide array of technologies, who manages patent case dockets with outside counsel.

Lead Outside Counsel (Kirkland & Ellis LLP):

• Peter Jason Evangelatos
  • Role: Attorney (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY
  • Note: Partner with extensive experience in patent litigation before district courts, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), including representing Samsung in other patent infringement matters related to camera technology, audio signal processing, and wireless communications.
• Gregory S. Arovas
  • Role: Attorney (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY
  • Note: A highly recognized IP litigation partner, known for representing high-technology clients such as Samsung in numerous high-profile patent and trade secret litigations in district courts and the ITC, across various technology sectors.
• Todd M. Friedman
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY
  • Note: A senior litigation partner and experienced trial lawyer with a primary focus on intellectual property matters, including representing Samsung in Eastern District of Texas actions related to USB power supply and charging, and mobile tethering technologies.
• F. Christopher Mizzo
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: A trial lawyer experienced in complex commercial and intellectual property disputes, including patent infringement litigation in federal courts and the ITC, and post-grant reviews before the USPTO.
• David Rokach
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL
  • Note: A partner in the IP group with extensive experience in patent litigation at trial and appellate levels, involving technologies such as mobile communications, semiconductors, consumer products, and VoIP, and has represented Samsung.
• Alex R. Henriques
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY
  • Note: Focuses on patent infringement litigation in federal courts and the ITC, representing clients across a broad range of technologies including semiconductor fabrication, telecommunications, and computer software and hardware, and has represented Samsung.
• Austin Pennington
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY
  • Note: An intellectual property associate focusing on patent infringement litigation and contract litigation involving high-tech disputes.

Local Counsel (Eastern District of Texas):

• Melissa Richards Smith
  • Role: Attorney (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP, Marshall, TX
  • Note: A partner whose practice areas include Intellectual Property, and has a strong record in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Claire Abernathy Henry
  • Role: Attorney (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX
  • Note: Experienced in complex commercial litigation and patent litigation, with extensive knowledge of federal court practice in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.
• Charles Everingham, IV
  • Role: Attorney (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX
  • Note: His practice areas include Technology, Intellectual Property, and Litigation.

Counsel for Parallel PTAB Proceedings (O'Melveny & Myers LLP):

These attorneys are identified as counsel for Samsung in the parallel PTAB proceedings (e.g., IPR2025-01520, PGR2025-00083). While not explicitly listed as counsel of record for the district court case 2:25-cv-00378 in the provided snippets, they are actively representing Samsung in related matters.

• William M. Fink
  • Role: Lead Counsel (for PTAB Petitioners)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C.
• Brian Cook
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (for PTAB Petitioners)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
• Nicholas Whilt
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (for PTAB Petitioners)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
• Benjamin Haber
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (for PTAB Petitioners)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
• Caitlin Hogan
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (for PTAB Petitioners)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY
• Raj Paul
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (for PTAB Petitioners)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C.