Untitled case

The patent infringement case 2:24-cv-00691, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, involves Telcom Ventures LLC ("Telcom") as the plaintiff and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") as the defendants. Telcom Ventures LLC is likely a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), given its role as a plaintiff asserting multiple patents against a major technology company like Samsung, which manufactures and sells consumer electronics, including mobile phones and tablets.

The lawsuit alleges that Samsung infringes Telcom's patented innovations through its unauthorized making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing of products and associated methods into the United States. While the specific accused products are broadly referred to as "Accused Products" in the complaint, the nature of the asserted patents suggests they relate to various aspects of Samsung's technology offerings. The case specifically lists patent 11924743 as one of the asserted patents. Although a detailed technical sketch for patent 11924743 was not immediately available, other patents asserted in the same complaint, such as US11828743B2 (which seems to be a typo for 11924743, based on the abstract content found in the search results and the proximity in numbering), generally relate to systems and methods for reliably detecting wear metal particles in lubrication systems to avoid progressive damage, involving remote monitoring and data acquisition. It is important to note that the provided patent number in the initial prompt was 11924743, and search results for this number returned a patent titled "Systems and methods for reliably detecting wear metal particles in lubrication systems to avoid progressive damage" which uses 11828743 as the main identifier. Further clarification would be needed to confirm if the prompt's 11924743 is distinct or a related numbering.

This litigation is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent infringement lawsuits, often favored by patent holders due to its reputation for moving cases quickly and its history of plaintiff-friendly rulings, making it a notable forum for patent litigation. The filing of multiple patent infringement complaints against Samsung by different entities like KIWI Intellectual Assets Corporation and Polaris Wireless, Inc., also in the Eastern District of Texas, suggests a broader trend of patent assertions against major technology companies in this jurisdiction. The prevalence of third-party litigation funding in patent lawsuits, with a significant percentage of such cases occurring in the U.S., adds another layer of context to the financial dynamics that may be at play in such assertions.This is an active patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, under case number 2:24-cv-00691. The plaintiff is Telcom Ventures LLC ("Telcom"), a company that appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), given its business model of asserting patent rights against operating companies. The defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("SEC") and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA"), collectively referred to as "Samsung." Samsung is a major global technology company known for manufacturing and selling a wide range of consumer electronics, including mobile phones, tablets, and other related products.

Telcom alleges that Samsung infringes its asserted patents through the unauthorized making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing of certain "Accused Products" and associated methods into the United States. The specific patent at issue, 11924743, is broadly related to systems and methods for reliably detecting wear metal particles in lubrication systems to avoid progressive damage. This technology involves remote monitoring of vehicles and the acquisition and transmission of data regarding lubricant conditions, potentially impacting various aspects of Samsung's products that utilize such systems. It is worth noting that while the prompt provided patent 11924743, a search for this number closely aligns with details for US Patent No. 11,828,743 B2, suggesting a possible numerical proximity or a slight discrepancy in the provided patent number.

The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent infringement litigation, often chosen by plaintiffs for its efficient case management and historical track record in patent disputes. The high volume of patent cases, including those potentially supported by third-party litigation funding, highlights the strategic importance of this court for patent holders. The case is notable as it represents a continued trend of patent assertion entities targeting large technology manufacturers like Samsung in this jurisdiction, often involving multiple patents, as seen with other concurrent filings against Samsung by different plaintiffs in the same district.

This is an active patent infringement litigation case, Telcom Ventures LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-00691-JRG, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case involves patent 11924743.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Telcom Ventures LLC filed the complaint asserting infringement of eight patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,924,743, against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on August 21, 2024. Telcom's infringement contentions identified all claims of every asserted patent, totaling 118 asserted claims.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Review (IPR): On an unspecified date prior to August 27, 2025, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Review (Dkt. No. 47) of the patents at issue.
• Denial of Motion to Stay: On August 27, 2025, the Court (Judge Rodney Gilstrap) denied Samsung's Motion to Stay without prejudice. The Court noted that the IPRs were "still pending institution" at the time, and institution decisions were not expected until December 2025, with Final Written Decisions not expected until December 2026. The Court deemed the motion premature, given that jury selection was scheduled for June 1, 2026.
• Third Amended Docket Control Order: On August 29, 2025, a Third Amended Docket Control Order was issued, setting the jury selection for June 1, 2026, in Marshall, Texas. It also established deadlines for motions in limine by April 2, 2026.
• Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions: Samsung filed a Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. No. 57).
• Grant of Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions: On April 23, 2026, District Judge Rodney Gilstrap granted Samsung's Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions. Samsung had served its amended invalidity contentions approximately six months after the initial deadline, with about five months remaining in fact discovery. Some proposed amendments were opposed, while others were unopposed.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• Information regarding a specific Markman hearing or claim construction order is not readily available in the provided search results.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• Samsung subpoenaed Motorola Mobility LLC regarding potential mobile payment prior art on January 9, 2025.
• Samsung served its initial invalidity contentions on February 3, 2025, mentioning potential Motorola prior art and ongoing prior art discovery.
• Fact discovery was ongoing as of April 2026, with the Court noting five months remaining in the context of Samsung's motion to amend invalidity contentions.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• Jury selection is currently scheduled for June 1, 2026. No trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred yet as the case is still active and pre-trial.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains in active litigation, with a trial date set for June 2026.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• Samsung sought Inter Partes Review (IPR) of the asserted patents in May 2025.
• As of August 27, 2025, these IPRs were still pending institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• U.S. Patent No. 11,924,743 is also listed in an Ex-Parte Reexamination case, with Apple Inc. indicated as having requested it. The current status of this reexamination is not detailed in the provided search results.

The plaintiff in this patent infringement case, Telcom Ventures LLC, is represented by the following counsel of record:

Outside Counsel:

• James Glass (Attorney)
  • Firm: Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
  • Office Location: Unknown, likely based on firm's main offices.
  • Note: Mr. Glass is identified as an attorney representing Telcom Ventures LLC in relation to Patent 11770756 in a related Unified Patents Portal entry which also references case 2:24-cv-00691. His specific role (lead counsel, local counsel) in the district court case is not explicitly stated in the available search snippets but appearing as counsel for the patent owner in related proceedings suggests a significant role.

Further direct PACER access would be needed to definitively identify all appearing attorneys for Telcom Ventures LLC in the district court action and their specific roles (lead, of counsel, local). Based on the available search results, James Glass from Urquhart & Sullivan LLP is the only attorney explicitly linked to Telcom Ventures LLC in the context of this specific case number.

Note: While Unified Patents is frequently mentioned in the search results in connection with IPRs involving patents asserted by Telcom Ventures LLC, and they have in-house counsel, there is no indication from the provided search snippets that Unified Patents' in-house counsel are directly appearing as counsel of record for Telcom Ventures LLC in the 2:24-cv-00691 district court litigation. Unified Patents is an organization that challenges patents, often those asserted by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) like Telcom Ventures LLC. The search results indicate that Samsung Electronics America Inc. is the "requester" for a reexamination of a Telcom Ventures LLC patent, with Urquhart & Sullivan LLP and James Glass listed as the law firm and attorney for the patent owner, Telcom Ventures LLC, in that proceeding.

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in case 2:24-cv-00691 are represented by a team of in-house and outside counsel. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP appears to be a primary firm representing Samsung in this matter, with specific attorneys from their various offices. Gillam & Smith, LLP also provides local counsel.

Here's a breakdown of the defendant's counsel:

In-House Counsel (Samsung Electronics):

• Matthew Bathon (Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics). His responsibilities include coordinating Samsung's ITC and district court dockets. He previously was a partner at Steptoe LLP, focusing on Section 337 investigations before the ITC and IP disputes in district courts across various technologies.
• Phillip Lee (Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics US IP Center). He is a veteran litigator with experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing, and manages a docket of patent cases with outside counsel.

Outside Counsel:

• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

  • Joseph Reed (Partner).
  • Jeremy Thomas (Partner).
  • Iman Lordgooei (Partner, San Francisco office).
  • Brady Huynh (Attorney).
  • Kevin Hardy (Attorney, Washington D.C. office).
  • Sean S. Pak (Partner, San Francisco office).
  • Benjamin M. Kleinman (Partner).
  • James Glass (Attorney). He is listed as an attorney for Samsung Electronics America Inc. in a related PTAB filing (IPR2025-00976).

• Gillam & Smith, LLP

  • Melissa Richards Smith (Partner). Likely serves as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.

It's important to note that while some documents list other firms in the context of Samsung's patent activities generally, or in other related cases (e.g., Mayer Brown for a prior Maxell case, or various firms for patent prosecution), the information above specifically identifies attorneys appearing in the 2:24-cv-00691 docket or directly related PTAB proceedings associated with this case.