Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, case number 2:24-cv-01057, is currently active in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne having conducted a Markman Hearing. The plaintiff, XiFi Networks R&D, Inc., a Delaware entity, appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), as indicated by its "R&D Inc." designation and its business model of asserting numerous patents against a major technology company rather than manufacturing products. The defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York), both global operating companies known for their consumer electronics.

The core dispute revolves around allegations that Samsung's electronic devices infringe upon patents related to multi-link Wi-Fi operations. The accused instrumentalities include various Samsung devices such as smartphones (e.g., Galaxy S23, S24, S25 series, Galaxy Z Fold and Flip models), TVs, laptops, tablets, and wearable devices. Specifically, the complaint targets products that implement Multi-Link Operation (MLO) as defined in the IEEE 802.11be Draft Standard (D7.0, August 2024), utilizing two or more transceivers. The particular patent at issue, US Patent 11856414, broadly claims a method for aggregating bandwidth from multiple transceivers simultaneously, employing a processing interface to prepare and cause a data stream to be transmitted from both a first and second wireless transceiver to meet an application's bandwidth requirement. The original complaint, filed on December 17, 2024, asserted nine patents, and two additional patents were later added in an amended complaint, bringing the total to eleven patents from a single family.

This case is notable for several reasons, particularly the procedural posture within the Eastern District of Texas, a venue recognized for its historically swift time to trial and patent-owner-friendly reputation. A significant development occurred when Samsung's motion to stay the district court proceedings, pending the outcome of multiple inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) petitions it filed against the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), was denied by Judge Gilstrap on March 12, 2026. Such denials are relatively common in the Eastern District of Texas, underscoring the court's commitment to its established schedule, with a trial in this case currently set for October 19, 2026. This denial indicates that the litigation is proceeding concurrently with the PTAB reviews, adding complexity and potential for parallel validity determinations.

XiFi Networks R&D, Inc. initiated patent infringement litigation against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") in the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:24-cv-01057, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent 11856414, among others. The case is currently active with key pre-trial milestones completed and a trial date set.

Here is a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • December 17, 2024: Plaintiff XiFi Networks R&D, Inc. filed its initial complaint against Samsung.
  • March 11, 2025: XiFi Networks R&D, Inc. filed its First Amended Complaint, which remains the operative pleading. The First Amended Complaint asserts eleven patents from a single family, including US Patent 11856414.
  • June 9, 2025: Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • March 12, 2025: XiFi Networks R&D, Inc. provided its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions.
  • June 18, 2025: Samsung submitted its Invalidity Contentions.
  • The parties are actively engaged in discovery.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Motion to Stay:

  • July 3, 2025: Samsung filed seven Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions challenging seven of the asserted patents.
  • July 10, 2025: Samsung filed an eighth IPR petition challenging another asserted patent.
  • July 21, 2025: Samsung filed three Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions challenging the remaining three patents asserted in the litigation, making a total of eleven challenged patents. Specifically, an IPR petition, IPR2025-01209, was filed against US Patent 11856414.
  • July 21, 2025: Patent Owner XiFi Networks R&D, Inc. requested the Director to exercise discretion and deny institution of at least IPR2025-01204, arguing that a district court trial was scheduled before the PTAB's final written decision deadline and a stay was unlikely.
  • March 12, 2026: The District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Samsung's Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes and Post-Grant Review.

• Claim Construction (Markman):

  • February 4, 2026: The parties submitted their Joint Claim Construction Statement.
  • February 27, 2026: An amended joint claim construction statement was filed.
  • April 29, 2026: A Claim Construction Hearing was scheduled. The outcome of this hearing would have occurred after the current date and is not yet publicly detailed as a final order.

• Trial Events:

  • October 19, 2026: Jury Selection for the trial is currently scheduled to begin in Marshall, Texas.

• Current Posture:

  • The case remains active in the Eastern District of Texas. No final judgment, settlement, or appeal has been reported as of the current date. The parties are progressing through pre-trial phases, with claim construction recently addressed and a trial date set for later in 2026.

Plaintiff XiFi Networks R&D, Inc. in the case 2:24-cv-01057 in the Texas Eastern District Court is represented by the following counsel:

• Garrett Parish
  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied through being listed first in attorney appearances and typical practice in patent litigation).
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN.
  • Experience Note: Robins Kaplan LLP is a firm well-known for its intellectual property and patent litigation practice.
• Aaron R. Fahrenkrog
  • Role: Counsel (appears as part of the primary litigation team).
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Fahrenkrog is a patent litigator with Robins Kaplan LLP, a firm recognized for its intellectual property litigation.
• Matthew Woods
  • Role: Counsel (appears as part of the primary litigation team).
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP.
  • Experience Note: Information on Matthew Woods' specific patent litigation experience as part of Robins Kaplan LLP would require further detailed search.
• Rebecca Bact
  • Role: Counsel (appears as part of the primary litigation team).
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP.
  • Experience Note: Information on Rebecca Bact's specific patent litigation experience as part of Robins Kaplan LLP would require further detailed search.

Additionally, while not explicitly listed as "local counsel" in the provided snippet, it is common practice in the Eastern District of Texas for local counsel to be involved. Given the details of other attorneys in the search results and common practice, it's worth noting some prominent local counsel often associated with patent cases in this district:

• Michael E. Jones
  • Role: Often serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Firm: Potter Minton, P.C., Tyler, TX.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Jones has extensive experience trying lawsuits in state and federal courts, emphasizing intellectual property litigation, and has been designated a "go to" lawyer for numerous Fortune 500 Companies in IP litigation, including successfully obtaining a $41 million dollar judgment for a plaintiff in a patent infringement case.
• D. Scott Hemingway
  • Role: Often serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Firm: Hemingway & Hansen, LLP, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Hemingway has over twenty years of litigation and trial experience in intellectual property law, including coordinating licensing and litigation efforts for intellectual property asset portfolios that generated multi-million dollar revenues and settlements, and has obtained significant awards in trade secret cases.

The initial attorney appearances listed Garrett Parish, Aaron Fahrenkrog, Matthew Woods, and Rebecca Bact. The search results confirmed Aaron R. Fahrenkrog is with Robins Kaplan LLP in Minneapolis. While specific firm and office locations for Garrett Parish, Matthew Woods, and Rebecca Bact were not explicitly detailed in the same search result, it is highly probable they are also with Robins Kaplan LLP, given Mr. Fahrenkrog's affiliation and the collective appearance for the plaintiff. Further, the "Notice of Attorney Appearance - Pro Hac Vice" suggests that these attorneys are likely from out-of-district firms, consistent with Robins Kaplan's Minneapolis office. It's important to note that without direct PACER access, definitive roles (e.g., "lead counsel") beyond "attorney appearance" are inferred based on typical litigation team structure and experience.## Counsel of Record for Plaintiff XiFi Networks R&D, Inc.

The plaintiff, XiFi Networks R&D, Inc., in the case 2:24-cv-01057 in the Texas Eastern District Court, is represented by a team of attorneys, primarily from Robins Kaplan LLP, with additional prominent Texas-based intellectual property litigators often involved as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.

The attorneys of record for XiFi Networks R&D, Inc. include:

• Aaron R. Fahrenkrog
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, MN.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Fahrenkrog is an attorney at Robins Kaplan LLP, a firm recognized for its intellectual property litigation practice.

Based on the available docket information and common practice in patent litigation, the following individuals have also appeared or are expected to play a role:

• Garrett Parish
  • Role: Counsel (likely lead counsel from Robins Kaplan LLP based on order of appearance in docket summaries).
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP.
  • Experience Note: Robins Kaplan LLP is a national law firm with a significant intellectual property and patent litigation practice.
• Matthew Woods
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP.
  • Experience Note: Specific details of Mr. Woods' patent litigation experience would require further direct examination of firm biographies or specific case filings.
• Rebecca Bact
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP.
  • Experience Note: Specific details of Ms. Bact's patent litigation experience would require further direct examination of firm biographies or specific case filings.

Given the common practice in the Eastern District of Texas, it is also highly probable that local counsel from Texas are involved. While the initial search did not explicitly detail the roles of "local counsel" for these specific attorneys, prominent patent litigators in the Eastern District of Texas who often serve in this capacity include:

• Michael E. Jones
  • Role: Frequently serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Firm: Potter Minton, P.C., Tyler, TX.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Jones is highly experienced in intellectual property litigation, having successfully tried cases to juries for both plaintiffs and defendants, including obtaining a $41 million patent infringement judgment for a plaintiff. He has been recognized as a "go to" lawyer for numerous Fortune 500 companies in intellectual property litigation.
• D. Scott Hemingway
  • Role: Frequently serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Firm: Hemingway & Hansen, LLP, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Hemingway possesses over twenty years of litigation and trial experience in intellectual property law, managing patent, copyright, and trademark portfolios, and has coordinated licensing and litigation efforts resulting in multi-million dollar revenues and settlements.

The "Notice of Attorney Appearance - Pro Hac Vice" filed on April 30, 2026, suggests that at least some of the appearing attorneys are from out-of-district firms, which aligns with Robins Kaplan LLP's Minneapolis office. Filings are not sealed based on publicly available docket information.

The defendants in XiFi Networks R&D, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Case No. 2:24-cv-01057) are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc..

The following attorneys are counsel of record for the defendants:

• Patrick Thomas Schmidt (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California
  • Note: Patrick Schmidt is a partner at Quinn Emanuel and focuses on intellectual property litigation, particularly patent litigation.

• Jason Clarence Williams (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results, but generally associated with the firm's patent litigation practice.
  • Note: Jason Williams is listed as counsel for the defendants.

• Sean S. Pak (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: San Francisco, California
  • Note: Sean Pak is identified as counsel for the defendants, associated with Quinn Emanuel's San Francisco office.

• Kevin Hardy (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Washington D.C.
  • Note: Kevin Hardy is listed as counsel for the defendants, operating out of Quinn Emanuel's D.C. office.

• Melissa Richards Smith (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas
  • Note: Melissa Richards Smith is a well-known patent litigator in the Eastern District of Texas and frequently serves as local counsel in patent infringement cases in the "Rocket Docket" due to her familiarity with local rules and procedures.

• Andrea Leigh Fair (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
  • Office Location: Not specified, but likely within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Note: Andrea Fair is listed as counsel for the defendants.

• Aaron R. Fahrenkrog (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP
  • Office Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • Note: Aaron Fahrenkrog is listed as counsel for the defendants.

• Logan James Drew (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP
  • Office Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • Note: Logan James Drew is listed as counsel for the defendants.

• Nicole Olson (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified, but likely Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Note: Nicole Olson is listed as counsel for the defendants.

• Jessica Lee Gutierrez (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Robins Kaplan LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified, but likely Minneapolis, Minnesota.
  • Note: Jessica Lee Gutierrez is listed as counsel for the defendants.