Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, filed as Case No. 2:24-cv-01073 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, involves plaintiff Radian Memory Systems LLC against defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its subsidiary Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Radian Memory Systems is identified as a Texas-based patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE). Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a South Korean multinational electronics manufacturer, with its subsidiary Samsung Electronics America, Inc. having a principal place of business in New Jersey and offices in Texas. Samsung is a prominent player in the electronics industry, specializing in computer peripherals and software, including solid-state drives (SSDs).

The core of the dispute centers on Samsung's alleged infringement of Radian's "Cooperative Flash Management" (CFM) technology, which aims to enhance the performance and efficiency of solid-state drives (SSDs) in enterprise and data center environments. Radian asserts seven U.S. patents in this case, including the listed U.S. Patent No. 11,307,995, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 11,544,183; 11,709,772; 11,681,614; 11,740,801; 11,347,657; and 11,347,656. The accused products are various Samsung SSD products, specifically those implementing Zoned Namespace (ZNS) technology, such as PM1731a, PM1733, PM1735, PM9731a, and PB SSD products. The patents generally describe a new paradigm for managing flash storage media that can reduce or eliminate conventional SSD elements and processes like Flash Translation Layer (FTL) tables and device-level garbage collection.

The case is being heard by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its reputation as a "rocket docket" known for fast trial schedules and plaintiff-friendly juries. Despite past Supreme Court decisions like TC Heartland that restricted patent venue, plaintiffs continue to find ways to litigate in the Eastern District of Texas, sometimes by targeting foreign affiliates. This case is particularly notable because Radian, an NPE, alleges that Samsung incorporated Radian's patented technology into the NVMe Zoned Namespace (ZNS) standard after Radian declined to join the NVMe consortium and license its technology royalty-free. Adding to its notability, the U.S. Government, through the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, filed a rare Statement of Interest supporting Radian's motion for a preliminary injunction, emphasizing that even non-practicing entities can suffer irreparable harm from infringement and may be entitled to injunctive relief. This intervention highlights the broader policy implications regarding patent rights, standardization, and the ability of NPEs to secure injunctive relief.

Key Legal Developments and Current Posture in Radian Memory Systems LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01073, was filed by Radian Memory Systems LLC (Radian) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, Samsung) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, centers on alleged infringement of several patents related to Cooperative Flash Management (CFM) technology for solid-state drives (SSDs), including U.S. Patent No. 11,307,995. The case is currently ongoing.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

Radian Memory Systems LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement on December 23, 2024, alleging that Samsung infringes multiple patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 11,307,995; 11,347,656; 11,347,657; 11,544,183; 11,681,614; 11,709,772; and 11,740,801. The complaint claims that Samsung's Zoned Namespaces (ZNS)-enabled SSD products infringe Radian's patented technology, particularly after Radian declined to join the NVMe consortium, which would have required royalty-free licensing of its intellectual property.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

A significant early development was Radian's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed on May 6, 2025. Radian sought to enjoin Samsung from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing SSDs incorporating the allegedly infringing technology. Radian argued that it would suffer irreparable harm from ongoing infringement, citing traditional equitable principles and potential injury to its market position, reputation, and loss of patent term.

Samsung opposed this motion, contending that Radian lacked standing, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and could be adequately compensated by monetary damages.

In a notable intervention, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) filed a joint Statement of Interest on June 24, 2025. This statement supported Radian's request for a preliminary injunction, arguing that ongoing patent infringement can cause irreparable harm and that monetary damages may be an insufficient remedy, even for non-practicing entities. The government emphasized that injunctive relief is vital for upholding the value of U.S. patents. While supporting the general principle of irreparable harm, the DOJ/USPTO statement rejected Radian's argument based on 18th-century equity principles, finding it inconsistent with the Supreme Court's eBay v. MercExchange decision. As of the current date, the definitive outcome of Radian's preliminary injunction motion is not explicitly stated in the public information, but Samsung's arguments for denial suggest it was not immediately granted.

Claim Construction (Markman)

A Markman (claim construction) hearing for the case was scheduled for February 26, 2026.

Discovery Milestones

As of January 2026, the parties were expected to be engaged in the Markman process, with fact discovery reportedly closing in approximately two months. A Protective Order was signed by Judge Gilstrap on April 29, 2025.

Trial Events and Outcome

The case has not yet reached trial. The projected start of trial is February 2, 2027, based on the median time-to-trial statistics for patent cases before Judge Gilstrap. An earlier trial date of August 31, 2026, was deemed unlikely to hold.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01266, against one of the asserted patents, U.S. Patent No. 11,544,183 (the '183 Patent). The IPR petition was filed in January 2026. The petition discusses the district court action and its projected trial date, arguing that the Fintiv factors should weigh in favor of institution, or at least be neutral, as the final written decision would likely issue before any district court trial.

Final Disposition or Present Posture

The case remains active and is currently in the pre-trial phase in the Eastern District of Texas. Despite one source listing the case status as "Closed" in May 2025, other consistent references to ongoing motions, Markman schedules, and future trial dates indicate that the case is active.

Plaintiff in this case is Radian Memory Systems LLC. The following attorneys are identified as counsel of record for Radian Memory Systems LLC:

• Randall T. Garteiser
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Garteiser Honea PLLC
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: Randall Garteiser is a patent litigator who has represented plaintiffs in numerous patent infringement lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas, as evidenced by his representation of Spinelogik, Inc. in several cases.

Further PACER docket review would be necessary to identify any additional local counsel or "of counsel" attorneys who have entered an appearance for the plaintiff. In-house counsel for Radian Memory Systems LLC are not immediately apparent from the search results.

The defendants in Radian Memory Systems LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., case number 2:24-cv-01073 in the Texas Eastern District Court, are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. Their counsel of record includes attorneys from Gillam & Smith LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

Here is the counsel representing the defendants:

• Melissa R. Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP, Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience: Melissa Smith is a highly experienced trial lawyer specializing in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and has been involved in numerous high-stakes intellectual property disputes.

• Sean S. Pak

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied by firm's role and his seniority)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, California.
  • Experience: Sean Pak is a partner and co-chair of Quinn Emanuel's national intellectual property litigation practice, frequently representing major technology companies in complex patent infringement cases.

• Arian Joseph Koochesfahani

  • Role: Counsel (appeared Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP. Office location is not explicitly stated in the search results but he appeared on behalf of all defendants.
  • Experience: Arian Koochesfahani is an attorney at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, focusing on intellectual property litigation.

• Lance Lin Yang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience: Lance Yang is an attorney at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, whose practice includes patent litigation.

• Kevin Hardy

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington D.C..
  • Experience: Kevin Hardy is an attorney at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, with experience in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.