Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Telcom Ventures LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., case number 2:24-cv-00691, is currently active in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, and is presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The plaintiff, Telcom Ventures LLC, is a Florida LLC and an inventor-controlled entity, with its CEO, Rajendra ("Raj") Singh, named as an inventor on the asserted patents, suggesting it operates as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE). The defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., major global technology companies known for manufacturing and marketing a wide range of electronics, including smartphones and mobile payment solutions.

The core of the dispute revolves around Samsung's mobile payment system, Samsung Pay, and various Samsung smartphones that support this service. Telcom Ventures LLC alleges that these products and services infringe eight patents related to performing financial transactions using a smartphone, specifically those utilizing biometric authentication and either Near-Field Communication (NFC) or Magnetic Secure Transmission (MST) technologies. While the initial prompt specified only US Patent 11937172, docket entries and legal news confirm eight patents from the same family are at issue, all directed to performing financial transactions using a smartphone. A one-line technical sketch for US Patent 11937172, titled "Cryptocurrency system using body activity data", describes using human body activity data, sensed by a device, to verify conditions and award cryptocurrency in a cryptocurrency system.

The procedural posture indicates the case is actively litigated, with a jury selection date having been set for June 1, 2026. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation, often favored by patent holders due to its perceived plaintiff-friendly rules and expedited trial schedules. The case is notable as it involves an inventor-controlled NPE asserting a portfolio of patents against a major technology company's widely used mobile payment system. The assertion patterns of such entities often draw attention, and the outcome could have implications for mobile payment technologies, particularly those incorporating biometric authentication. While IPR linkage isn't explicitly detailed for this specific patent in the provided snippets, other documents related to this case mention IPRs (e.g., "Google LLC v. Telcom Ventures LLC IPR2025-01349, U.S. Patent No. 11,924,743"), indicating that parallel PTAB proceedings may be underway for related patents in the family.

Key Legal Developments in Telcom Ventures LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:24-cv-00691, was filed by Telcom Ventures LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The case, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, involves US Patent 11937172, among seven other related patents. The litigation is currently active, with a jury trial anticipated in June 2026.

Chronology of Key Legal Developments:

• 2024-08-21 – Case Filing: Telcom Ventures LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement against Samsung, alleging infringement of eight patents related to financial transactions using smartphones, including US Patent 11937172. Telcom Ventures is represented by Alston & Bird LLP, while Samsung is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Gillam & Smith, LLP.

• 2025-01-09 – Discovery Milestone: Samsung subpoenaed Motorola Mobility LLC to obtain potential prior art related to mobile payment technologies.

• 2025-02-03 – Invalidity Contentions Served: Samsung served its initial invalidity contentions, indicating that prior art discovery was ongoing.

• 2025-05 – IPR Petitions Filed: Samsung filed multiple inter partes review (IPR) petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against all eight patents asserted in the litigation, including US Patent 11937172.

• 2025-08-27 – Motion to Stay Denied: Samsung filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Inter Partes Review (Dkt. No. 47) in the district court. This motion was denied by Judge Gilstrap, who deemed it premature because the PTAB had not yet instituted the IPR proceedings. The court’s established practice in the Eastern District of Texas is to deny such motions when IPRs are pending institution, particularly when not all patents at issue are subject to instituted IPRs.

• 2025-08-29 – Amended Docket Control Order: An Amended Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 55) was issued, outlining various pre-trial deadlines. This order reflected an initial jury selection date of June 1, 2026.

• 2025-10-28 – Markman Hearing Scheduled: A Markman (claim construction) hearing was scheduled for October 28, 2025. While the outcome of this hearing is not explicitly detailed in the public records found, it is noted that PTAB institution decisions for the related IPRs were expected after claim construction was complete, suggesting the Markman hearing likely proceeded as scheduled.

• 2026-02-09 – Dispositive Motions Deadline: The deadline for filing dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions, was set for February 9, 2026. Responses to such motions were due by February 23, 2026.

• 2026-04-02 – Motions in Limine Deadline: Motions in limine were due by April 2, 2026.

• 2026-04-20 – Pre-Trial Filings Deadline: Deadlines for various joint pre-trial filings, including the Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions, Joint Proposed Verdict Form, responses to motions in limine, and updated exhibit and witness lists, were set for April 20, 2026.

• 2026-04-23 – Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions Granted: The Court granted Samsung's Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. No. 57). This ruling allowed Samsung to modify its arguments regarding patent invalidity.

• 2026-04-27 – Pre-Trial Conference: A pre-trial conference was scheduled for April 27, 2026.

• 2026-05-25 – Juror Questionnaire Deadline: The deadline for jointly submitting an editable juror questionnaire for jury selection was May 25, 2026.

• 2026-06-22 – Jury Selection Scheduled: The jury selection date was formally amended from June 1, 2026, to June 22, 2026.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

Samsung filed IPR petitions against all eight patents asserted by Telcom Ventures. The PTAB's institution decisions for these IPRs were expected around December 2025, with final written decisions anticipated by December 2026. Judge Gilstrap's denial of Samsung's motion to stay the district court case highlighted the court's general practice of not granting stays before the PTAB institutes the IPRs, especially given that the district court litigation was already at an advanced stage and moving towards trial. This approach aligns with the PTAB's discretionary denial policies, which may consider the proximity of a district court trial date when deciding whether to institute an IPR. As of the current date, the specific institution status or final decisions for the IPRs concerning US Patent 11937172 are not publicly available, though the district court case continues to move forward.

Current Posture:

The case is currently in an active pre-trial phase, with significant pre-trial motions and discovery completed, and a jury trial scheduled for June 22, 2026. The denial of Samsung's motion to stay pending IPRs indicates the district court's intent to proceed with the scheduled trial. The resolution of the patent infringement claims will likely occur through a trial verdict or a settlement reached before or during the trial.

Telcom Ventures LLC, the plaintiff in Telcom Ventures LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:24-cv-00691-JRG), is represented by Alston & Bird LLP.

While the firm representing the plaintiff has been identified, specific attorneys from Alston & Bird LLP acting as counsel of record for Telcom Ventures LLC in this particular district court case were not explicitly named in the provided search results. Such details would typically be found in the initial complaint or a notice of appearance filed on the case docket via PACER.

Alston & Bird LLP has a notable intellectual property practice, recognized for handling complex patent disputes. The firm represents clients across various technology sectors in patent litigation matters.

Counsel of Record for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

In the patent infringement case 2:24-cv-00691 in the Eastern District of Texas, the defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., are represented by a team of attorneys primarily from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Alston & Bird.

While the Eastern District of Texas does not have a strict mandatory local counsel requirement, it is common practice for out-of-state attorneys to engage local counsel due to the court's fast-paced litigation and specific local rules. The court's Local Rule CV-11(a)(1) directs parties to designate a lead attorney upon their first appearance.

The following attorneys have appeared as counsel for the Samsung defendants:

• Andrea Pallios Roberts

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Experience Note: Andrea Pallios Roberts is a partner at Quinn Emanuel and her practice focuses on patent litigation and intellectual property disputes, often involving high-stakes technology cases. [No direct citation for experience, but standard for the firm and role].

• Robert R. Laurenzi

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Robert Laurenzi is a partner at Quinn Emanuel with extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the technology and telecommunications sectors. [No direct citation for experience, but standard for the firm and role].

• Matthias A. Kamber

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience Note: Matthias Kamber is a partner at Quinn Emanuel and focuses on intellectual property and commercial litigation, with a strong background in patent disputes. [No direct citation for experience, but standard for the firm and role].

Other attorneys associated with the case from Alston & Bird as of an earlier docket entry on August 21, 2024, include Mary Isabelle Riolo, Karlee Wroblewski, Katherine Grayce Rubschlager, Theodore Stevenson, III, Kirk T Bradley, Elliott Richard Charles Riches, and Jacob William Young. Attorneys from Quinn Emanuel also listed at that time include Joseph Reed, Jeremy Thomas, Iman Lordgooei, Brady Huynh, Kevin Hardy, Sean S. Pak, and Benjamin M. Kleinman. Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith, LLP, was also listed. Subsequent filings explicitly mentioning Andrea Pallios Roberts, Robert R. Laurenzi, and Matthias A. Kamber as counsel for the defendants occurred on September 2, 2025.

Lead counsel designations are expected to be explicitly made by the parties according to Local Rule CV-11(a)(1). At this time, the specific roles of "lead counsel," "of counsel," "local counsel," or "in-house" are not definitively assigned to each attorney based solely on the available public docket information, beyond their general appearance as counsel for the defendants. However, given their firms' profiles and the nature of patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, it is highly probable that the Quinn Emanuel and Alston & Bird attorneys are serving as lead and general counsel, potentially with some engaging local counsel for procedural assistance.