Untitled case

This active patent infringement litigation, Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., case number 2:25-cv-00667, is unfolding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, Network-1 Technologies, Inc., is a publicly traded non-practicing entity (NPE) that specializes in the acquisition, development, and licensing of intellectual property assets. The defendants are global electronics giant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its American subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. While the specific accused products are not detailed in public dockets, the patents asserted by Network-1 were acquired from M2M and IoT Technologies, LLC, suggesting that Samsung's Machine-to-Machine (M2M) and Internet of Things (IoT) related products or services in the software and security sectors are at the core of the alleged infringement.

The primary patent at issue, as specified in the case metadata, is US Patent 12207094. However, a detailed one-line technical sketch for patent 12207094 is not readily available through public search channels. Docket information for this case, however, indicates Network-1 is asserting a portfolio of six patents, with one listed example being US 11,233,780 B2, pertaining to "METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR REDUCING HEAT LOSS FROM EDGE". This discrepancy suggests that patent 12207094 is likely part of this broader portfolio, and the overall technical focus aligns with the M2M and IoT technologies from which the patents were sourced.

The procedural posture sees the case, filed on June 27, 2025, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas. A Markman (claim construction) hearing is currently scheduled for December 14, 2026. This venue is notably plaintiff-friendly for patent litigation, often referred to as a "rocket docket" due to its expedited timelines, and has historically been perceived as sympathetic to patentees, particularly in disputes involving large technology companies. Despite shifts in patent venue law following the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision, the Eastern District of Texas, and specifically Judge Gilstrap's court, remains a significant forum for patent cases. The case is notable for exemplifying NPE assertion patterns against major operating companies in critical technology sectors like M2M and IoT, highlighting ongoing intellectual property monetization strategies.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00667 (E.D. Tex.)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, involves Network-1 Technologies, Inc. as the plaintiff and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. as the defendants, concerning US patent 12207094. The case is currently active and is proceeding through the claim construction phase.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

• 2025-06-27 – Complaint Filed: Network-1 Technologies, Inc. initiated the lawsuit by filing its complaint for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc..
• 2025-10-10 – Docket Control Order Issued: A comprehensive docket control order was issued by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, outlining key deadlines for the case, including the Markman hearing and discovery.
• 2025-10-15 – Discovery Order Issued: A discovery order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2025-10-21 – Protective Order Issued: A protective order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2025-10-22 – First Amended Complaint Filed: Network-1 Technologies, Inc. filed a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement against the Samsung entities. This amended complaint remains the operative pleading in the case.
• 2025-10-28 – Motion to Dismiss Denied: Samsung's motion to dismiss was denied by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2025-11-05 – Answer and Counterclaims Filed: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed their Answer to the Amended Complaint, which also included counterclaims against Network-1 Technologies, Inc..
• 2026-01-13 – Motion to Focus Asserted Patent Claims Filed: Samsung filed an "Opposed Motion to Focus Asserted Patent Claims".
• 2026-04-23 – Motion to Focus Asserted Patent Claims Denied: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied Samsung's motion to focus asserted patent claims without prejudice. The court noted that a renewed motion could be filed if appropriate and material narrowing had not occurred during the natural progression of the case, but no sooner than 75 days from the order date.
• 2026-08-10 – Claim Construction Process to Begin: The parties are scheduled to begin the claim construction process.
• 2026-12-14 – Markman Hearing Scheduled: A Markman hearing is set to take place at 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2027-03-01 – Deadline for Dispositive Motions: The deadline for filing dispositive motions, including Daubert motions, is set for this date, and no such motion may be filed afterward without leave of the Court.
• 2027-04-12 – Deadline for Motions in Limine: Motions in limine are due by this date.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

A search for PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on US patent 12207094 using the USPTO P-TACTS system did not immediately yield any public records of such proceedings. Therefore, there is no information about parallel PTAB proceedings or their effect on this litigation available from the conducted searches.

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

Plaintiff: Network-1 Technologies, Inc.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

• Michael F. Heim

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP
  • Office Location: Houston, TX
  • Experience: A highly experienced patent litigator, Michael F. Heim leads a firm frequently involved in significant patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Eric J. Enger

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP
  • Office Location: Houston, TX
  • Experience: Practices patent litigation.

• William B. Collier, Jr.

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP
  • Office Location: Houston, TX
  • Experience: Practices patent litigation.

• R. Allan Bullwinkel (Robert Allan Bullwinkel)

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP
  • Office Location: Houston, TX
  • Experience: Practices patent litigation.

• Amir H. Alavi

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC
  • Office Location: Houston, TX
  • Experience: Involved in high-stakes patent litigation.

• Demetrios Anaipakos

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC
  • Office Location: Houston, TX
  • Experience: Practices patent litigation.

• Masood Anjom

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC
  • Office Location: Houston, TX
  • Experience: Practices patent litigation.

• Steven T. Jugle

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC
  • Office Location: Houston, TX
  • Experience: Practices patent litigation.

• Connie Flores Jones

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC
  • Office Location: Houston, TX
  • Experience: Practices patent litigation.

• Christopher R. Pinckney

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC
  • Office Location: Houston, TX
  • Experience: Practices patent litigation.

• Claire A. Henry

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX
  • Experience: A highly experienced patent litigator.

• Andrea L. Fair

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
  • Office Location: Dallas, TX
  • Experience: Practices patent litigation.

Note: While many patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas involve specific local counsel based in East Texas firms, the provided search results list the above attorneys from Houston and Dallas-based firms as representing the plaintiff without explicitly designating separate "local counsel." It is common for attorneys from these larger Texas firms to also handle local counsel responsibilities or be admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas.

The defendants in this case, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. (collectively, "Samsung"), are represented by counsel from Gillam & Smith, LLP, and O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The counsel of record representing the defendant(s) are:

• Melissa Richards Smith

  • Role: Partner, Local Counsel.
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP, Marshall, Texas, and Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience: Melissa Richards Smith is a highly experienced trial attorney, particularly in patent litigation within the Eastern District of Texas. She has a strong track record representing both plaintiffs and defendants, securing non-infringement and invalidity verdicts, and has served as local counsel in thousands of patent cases. She is recognized as a "go-to" lawyer for intellectual property by numerous Fortune 500 companies.

• Jonathan Clark

  • Role: Associate, Counsel (appearing pro hac vice).
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, New York.
  • Experience: Jon Clark focuses on patent litigation across various technologies, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer electronics. He has represented global smartphone and consumer electronics companies in district court matters, including cases in the Eastern District of Texas, involving patents related to mobile communications.

• Laura B. Gore

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, New York.
  • Experience: Laura B. Gore's practice focuses on patent litigation, with experience in technologies such as semiconductors, graphics processing, memory, graphical user interfaces, authentication, and consumer electronics. She has litigated cases in federal district courts nationwide, before the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including representing an industry-leading computer and electronics company in a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Laura M. Burson

  • Role: Senior Counsel/Partner.
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience: Laura M. Burson is an intellectual property litigator and trial lawyer with extensive experience representing technology companies in patent, trade secrets, and commercial litigation. She has significant trial and appellate experience in U.S. District Courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and in post-grant matters before the USPTO. She has been recognized as a "Litigation Star" in Intellectual Property by Benchmark Litigation and a "Litigation – Patent Lawyer of the Year" in Los Angeles by Best Lawyers in America.

• Nicholas J Whilt

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience: Nicholas J Whilt has substantial experience litigating patent infringement and other technology disputes in district courts across the United States and in Section 337 investigations before the U.S. International Trade Commission. He regularly represents Fortune 500 companies in complex actions concerning patent rights and has defended clients in patent actions in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Marc J Pensabene

  • Role: Partner.
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, New York.
  • Experience: Marc J Pensabene is an accomplished trial litigator focusing on complex intellectual property and technology litigation, including patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and breach of contract. His experience spans various technologies, including computer technology, electronics, and engineering, and he has successfully handled cases for leading technology and pharmaceutical companies.

• Ryan K Yagura

  • Role: Partner, Chair of the firm's Intellectual Property and Technology Practice.
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, California.
  • Experience: Ryan K. Yagura is an accomplished trial litigator with extensive experience leading offensive and defensive patent infringement cases in District Court and ITC litigation for leading technology companies, including Samsung. His work has involved technologies such as MPEG video compression, graphics processors, microprocessors, wireless/cellular, LCD displays, and memory. Prior to his legal career, he worked as an engineer at Intel Corporation on the Pentium microprocessor.