Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

This active patent infringement lawsuit, bearing case number 2:25-cv-00667, is currently ongoing in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff is Network-1 Technologies, Inc., identified as a publicly traded Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) that focuses on the development, licensing, and protection of its intellectual property assets. The defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its American subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The litigation, filed on June 27, 2025, alleges infringement related to patents acquired by Network-1 through transactions with M2M and IoT Technologies, LLC, an IP development company. The technology sector implicated in the complaint is "Software, Security," suggesting the accused products or services likely fall within the realm of machine-to-machine (M2M) and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies offered by Samsung. Specific Samsung products or services accused of infringing US Patent 11606204 are not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries beyond these general technology areas.

The core of this litigation involves US Patent 11606204, titled "System and method for identifying and tracking objects," and is one of several patents asserted by Network-1 in this campaign. This patent broadly describes a system and method for identifying and tracking objects through the use of unique identifiers and associated data. The case is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, and is assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is particularly notable in patent litigation, having been the top district for overall patent filings and NPE litigation in 2025 and Q1 2025. The Eastern District of Texas has experienced a resurgence in patent case filings, especially from NPEs, following shifts in venue trends after the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision and changes in other popular patent districts like Delaware and the Western District of Texas. Judge Gilstrap is well-known for handling a substantial volume of patent cases, making this court a preferred forum for patent assertions.

The procedural posture indicates active litigation, with a Claim Construction Hearing scheduled for December 14, 2026, and a jury selection date set for June 7, 2027. In April 2026, Judge Gilstrap denied without prejudice Samsung's motion to focus asserted patent claims, indicating the case is still in its early stages of defining the scope of the claims. As of the current date, there are no publicly available records of Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions filed against US Patent 11606204 in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) system. The case is notable due to Network-1's history as an NPE and the consistent pattern of such entities filing lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas, which remains a key battleground for patent infringement disputes.

The patent infringement case, Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., case number 2:25-cv-00667, is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit involves U.S. Patent 11606204, among others.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-06-27: Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed the initial complaint for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Defendants). The complaint asserted infringement of six patents received from M2M and IoT Technologies, LLC.
• 2025-10-22: Network-1 filed an Amended Complaint, which is currently the operative pleading in the case.
• 2025-11-05: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed their ANSWER to the Amended Complaint, along with COUNTERCLAIMS against Network-1 Technologies, Inc..

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-10-28: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a motion to dismiss (Document 25).
• 2026-01-13: Samsung filed a "Motion to Focus Asserted Patent Claims" (Document 48).
• 2026-04-23: The Court denied Samsung's "Opposed Motion to Focus Asserted Patent Claims" (Document 48) without prejudice, noting that narrowing claims might aid efficiency but should not unfairly prejudice the claimant.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• 2025-10-10: A Docket Control Order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, setting a schedule for the case.
• 2026-08-10: The parties are scheduled to begin the claim construction process.
• 2026-12-14: A Markman (Claim Construction) Hearing is scheduled to take place at 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• 2025-10-15: A Discovery Order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2025-10-21: A Protective Order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2027-03-01: The deadline for filing dispositive motions and motions to strike expert testimony (including Daubert motions) is set.
• 2027-03-15: Responses to dispositive motions (including Daubert motions) are due.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• 2027-06-07: Jury selection is scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas.
• 2027-05-03: A Pretrial Conference is scheduled for 9:00 a.m..

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case is currently active and ongoing, with a trial scheduled for June 2027. The Court has ordered the parties to file a Joint Notice regarding mediation within fourteen days of the claim construction order.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• No information about parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings specifically concerning US Patent 11606204 in case 2:25-cv-00667 was found in the provided search results. IPRs and PGRs are administrative patent validity challenges conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). A PGR must be filed within nine months of a patent's issuance, while an IPR can be filed at any time for eligible patents. IPRs are limited to challenges based on patents and printed publications, while PGRs allow for broader invalidity challenges.
• The cited "Amazon v. Smart Speaker IPR2026-00146" in the Docket Control Order is a separate IPR proceeding and does not appear to directly relate to US Patent 11606204 in this case.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Network-1 Technologies, Inc., in the patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00667 in the Eastern District of Texas:

Heim Payne & Chorush LLP

• Michael F. Heim (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Known for extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly for plaintiffs, with a strong track record in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Eric J. Enger (Counsel)
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Focuses on patent litigation across various technologies.
• William B. Collier, Jr. (Counsel)
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experienced in patent and intellectual property litigation.
• R. Allan Bullwinkel (Counsel)
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Practices in intellectual property and commercial litigation.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC

• Claire A. Henry (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Tyler, TX.
  • Provides local counsel services and is involved in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Andrea L. Fair (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Tyler, TX.
  • Handles civil litigation, including patent cases, in the Eastern District of Texas.

Alavi Anaipakos PLLC (Note: Some attorneys may be listed under Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing, which appears to be a predecessor or related firm. The provided docket information lists both, suggesting potential firm changes or a close relationship.)

• Amir H. Alavi (Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Prominent trial attorney with significant experience in high-stakes intellectual property and commercial disputes.
• Michael McBride (Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement.
• Masood Anjom (Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Handles patent and other complex commercial litigation.
• Steven T. Jugle (Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Practices in intellectual property litigation.
• Connie Jones (Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Involved in intellectual property and business litigation.
• Christopher R. Pinckney (Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Focuses on complex commercial and intellectual property litigation.

Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing P.C.

• Demetrios Anaipakos (Counsel)
  • Firm: Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing P.C., Houston, TX.
  • Experienced in complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes.

This information is based on docket entries and attorney listings for case 2:25-cv-00667. The Eastern District of Texas generally requires the designation of lead counsel on initial appearance. While specific "role" designations like "lead counsel" or "local counsel" are often indicated in initial filings, the primary firm listed with multiple attorneys is generally considered lead counsel, with local firms providing support.## Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

The following attorneys represent Network-1 Technologies, Inc., the plaintiff in case 2:25-cv-00667:

Heim Payne & Chorush LLP (Houston, TX)

• Michael F. Heim (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Known for extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly for plaintiffs, with a strong track record in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Eric J. Enger (Counsel)
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Focuses on patent litigation across various technologies.
• William B. Collier, Jr. (Counsel)
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experienced in patent and intellectual property litigation.
• R. Allan Bullwinkel (Counsel)
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Practices in intellectual property and commercial litigation.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Tyler, TX)

• Claire A. Henry (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Tyler, TX.
  • Provides local counsel services and is involved in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Andrea L. Fair (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Tyler, TX.
  • Handles civil litigation, including patent cases, in the Eastern District of Texas.

Alavi Anaipakos PLLC (Houston, TX)

• Amir H. Alavi (Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • A prominent trial attorney with significant experience in high-stakes intellectual property and commercial disputes.
• Michael McBride (Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement.
• Masood Anjom (Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Handles patent and other complex commercial litigation.
• Steven T. Jugle (Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Practices in intellectual property litigation.
• Connie Jones (Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Involved in intellectual property and business litigation.
• Christopher R. Pinckney (Counsel)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Focuses on complex commercial and intellectual property litigation.

Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing P.C. (Houston, TX)

• Demetrios Anaipakos (Counsel)
  • Firm: Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing P.C., Houston, TX.
  • Experienced in complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes.

The Eastern District of Texas requires parties to designate a lead attorney upon their first appearance through counsel. The attorneys listed above have appeared on behalf of Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

The defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., are represented by a team of experienced patent litigators from multiple firms.

Here is a breakdown of their counsel:

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

• Adam M. Janes (Partner) - Chicago office. Practices intellectual property litigation with a focus on patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and unfair competition matters. He represents clients in federal district courts, the USPTO, and the U.S. International Trade Commission, and counsels on IP acquisition, risk, and monetization strategy. His experience includes representing major consumer electronics companies in patent infringement litigation involving mobile payment and targeted advertising technology for smartphones.
• Amanda Hollis, P.C. (Partner) - Chicago office. An intellectual property litigator who has tried and led patent cases in federal courts across the country and in the U.S. International Trade Commission. She has also served as lead counsel in numerous inter partes reviews before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and her clients have included major companies such as Samsung. She successfully delayed a global patent litigation case for a client, transferred it from the Western District of Texas, secured denial of a preliminary injunction, invalidated multiple patents, and obtained a jury verdict that the opponent's suit breached contract.
• Robert W. Unikel (Partner, Head of Chicago and Midwest Intellectual Property practice) - Chicago office. His diverse practice includes litigating patent, trade secret, and trademark cases across various industries. He has experience trying patent and trade secret cases involving digital media distribution, consumer products, and financial services, and has handled appeals to the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.

O'Melveny & Myers LLP

• Marc J. Pensabene (Lead Counsel/Partner) - New York office. Frequently represents Samsung in patent litigation matters. He was involved in a Federal Circuit appeal for Samsung against Image Processing Technologies LLC, where the decision was affirmed. He also served as lead counsel for Samsung in an inter partes review before the PTAB for U.S. Patent No. 7,807,549.
• Jonathan Clark (Attorney, Pro Hac Vice) - O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Samsung.
• Laura B. Gore (Counsel) - O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Listed as counsel for Samsung in a patent infringement case against Empire Technology Development LLC.
• Nicholas J. Whilt (Partner) - Los Angeles office. Represented Samsung in the Image Processing Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. case.
• Ryan K. Yagura (Partner) - Los Angeles office. Also represented Samsung in the Image Processing Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. case.

Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Carl Bruce (Principal) - Dallas office. Focuses on creating IP programs, patent portfolios, and managing patent litigation. He has a background in chemical engineering and experience in diverse technical fields, including oil and gas, software, and electrical. He obtained summary judgment of non-infringement for clients Subaru and Porsche in a tire pressure monitoring system case, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
• Wes Musselman (Principal) - Dallas office. Emphasizes patent prosecution and patent litigation, advising clients on patent protection, portfolio management, licensing, and IP evaluation for mergers and acquisitions. He represented Merrill Lynch and Bank of America in a patent infringement action related to efficient compression and decompression of financial data.
• Michael Vincent (Attorney) - Dallas office. Counsels clients in intellectual property and commercial disputes, with a focus on patent litigation across various technologies including wireless communications, consumer electronics, and semiconductors. He has successfully obtained Rule 12 dismissals and Federal Circuit affirmance in patent infringement cases.

Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP

• Jennifer H. Wu (Partner) - Recognized for her advocacy skills in patent trial and appellate work, particularly in biologics cases. She is a former law clerk for Judge Alan D. Lourie of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Local Counsel

• The Docket Control Order mentions that each party must designate a lead attorney. While specific local counsel for Samsung in this case were not explicitly identified in the search results beyond the main firms, it is common practice in the Eastern District of Texas for out-of-state firms to associate with local counsel.

It is important to note that the role of "lead counsel" in specific filings may vary, but the individuals listed are actively representing Samsung in intellectual property matters.