Untitled case

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement litigation, RJ Technology LLC v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.), case number 2:22-cv-00401, is currently before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case was filed on October 13, 2022.

The plaintiff, RJ Technology LLC, appears to operate as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), also commonly known as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). While some online profiles describe "RJ Technology" entities as offering IT services, cybersecurity, and hardware repair, the patent at issue, US7749641, was assigned to "RJ TECHNOLOGY LLC, DELAWARE" on September 27, 2022, a mere two weeks before the lawsuit was filed. This pattern of acquiring patents shortly before initiating litigation is characteristic of a PAE. Further supporting this, Unified Patents, an organization dedicated to deterring unmeritorious patent assertions by NPEs, has filed multiple inter partes reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity of US7749641, naming RJ Technology LLC as the patent owner and Samsung and Apple as petitioners. The defendant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., is a global technology conglomerate known for manufacturing a wide array of electronic devices. The accused products are Samsung's electronic devices that incorporate secondary lithium-ion cells or batteries, as the patent relates to improvements in these power sources.

The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent 7,749,641, titled "Secondary lithium ion cell or battery, and protecting circuit, electronic device, and charging device of the same." Broadly, the patent describes a method for enhancing the capacity, average operating voltage, and specific energy of a secondary lithium-ion cell or battery by precisely adjusting the ratio between positive and negative electrode materials and increasing the charge cut-off voltage, all without negatively impacting the cell's recycle properties.

The procedural posture of this case is significant due to parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. Multiple IPRs were filed against US7749641 by entities including Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Apple Inc. Critically, IPR2023-01350, IPR2023-01183, and IPR2024-00597 have all concluded with "Final Written Decisions" finding the patent to be "Unpatentable." The outcome of at least one of these decisions has been appealed to the Federal Circuit. The district court case is being handled by Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne in the Eastern District of Texas (2:22-CV-00401-JRG-RSP). The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation, often favored by plaintiffs due to its experienced judges and historically swift trial dockets, despite fluctuations in filings after the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision. The case is notable for involving a suspected NPE asserting a patent against a major technology company in a highly litigious venue, with the validity of the asserted patent being heavily challenged and largely invalidated in parallel PTAB proceedings.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for RJ Technology LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2:22-cv-00401, E.D. Tex.)

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, involves RJ Technology LLC ("RJ Technology") asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641 against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd ("Samsung"). The case has seen significant activity, including parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings that ultimately led to the unpatentability of the asserted patent.

Chronological Summary of Key Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: RJ Technology LLC filed its complaint against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd on October 13, 2022. The cause of action is listed as patent infringement.
• Specific details regarding Samsung's answer and any counterclaims are not immediately available from the provided search snippets, beyond a general indication that answers and counterclaims are typical in such cases.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Amend Invalidity Contentions: On December 8, 2023, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued an order granting Samsung's motion to amend its invalidity contentions. Samsung sought to include a new prior art reference, and the court found that Samsung was diligent in its prior art searches and in seeking the amendment. This occurred while the case was still in its early stages, prior to claim construction.
• Letters Rogatory: The docket shows activity related to Letters Rogatory, with letters received from the Ministry of Justice, People's Republic of China, and the Government of India Ministry of Law & Justice Department of Legal Affairs in April 2026 and September 2024, respectively. This suggests discovery efforts involving foreign entities.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A Markman hearing was initially scheduled for February 16, 2024, but a later docket control order from November 27, 2024, reset the Markman Hearing for January 13, 2026, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The outcome of the Markman hearing held on January 13, 2026, is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• A Docket Control Order issued on April 5, 2023, set various deadlines, including amended pleadings due by December 1, 2023.
• A subsequent Docket Control Order on November 27, 2024, set new discovery deadlines: Discovery due by December 22, 2025, and Dispositive Motions due by January 5, 2026.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings & Their Effect on Litigation:

• Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions were filed against U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641 by Samsung.
  • First PTAB Petition: A PTAB petition was filed on July 21, 2023. Institution of this IPR was granted on January 22, 2024.
  • Second PTAB Petition: Another PTAB petition was filed on February 22, 2024. Institution for this IPR was granted on August 20, 2024.
• PTAB Unpatentability Rulings: On January 17, 2025, the PTAB found Patent US7749641 to be unpatentable in IPR2023-01183 and IPR2024-00597. The PTAB's finding of unpatentability in these IPRs would significantly impact the ongoing district court litigation, likely leading to a stay or dismissal of the infringement claims concerning these patents.

6. Present Posture & Outcome:

• As of the latest available information (August 5, 2026), the district court case 2:22-cv-00401 is listed as "Open". However, given the PTAB's final written decisions on January 17, 2025, finding the asserted patent (US7749641) unpatentable, the district court litigation is highly likely to have been dismissed or stayed pending any appeal of the PTAB decisions to the Federal Circuit. The provided snippets do not contain a final judgment or dismissal order from the district court, but the unpatentability finding by the PTAB often leads to such an outcome in the co-pending district court case.
• Dispositive motions were due by January 5, 2026, and a jury selection was set for April 6, 2026, with a pretrial conference on March 2, 2026. However, these dates precede the outcome of the Markman, and the PTAB unpatentability decision in January 2025 would likely have preempted a trial on the merits of infringement for the now-invalidated patent. Without specific docket entries from after the PTAB decisions, the exact procedural posture following the PTAB's unpatentability finding remains to be definitively determined from the provided sources.## Key Legal Developments and Outcome for RJ Technology LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (2:22-cv-00401, E.D. Tex.)

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, involves RJ Technology LLC ("RJ Technology") asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641 against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd ("Samsung"). The case has seen significant activity, including parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings that ultimately led to the unpatentability of the asserted patent.

Chronological Summary of Key Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: RJ Technology LLC initiated the lawsuit by filing its complaint against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd on October 13, 2022. The nature of the suit is listed as patent infringement.
• While specific details regarding Samsung's answer and any counterclaims are not provided in the snippets, the typical course of litigation involves the defendant filing an answer and often asserting counterclaims, including for non-infringement and invalidity.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Amend Invalidity Contentions: On December 8, 2023, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne issued an order granting Samsung's motion to amend its invalidity contentions. Samsung sought to incorporate a new prior art reference, and the court determined that Samsung had been diligent in its prior art searches and in seeking the amendment, especially given the early stage of the case before claim construction.
• Letters Rogatory: The docket reflects activity related to Letters Rogatory, indicating discovery efforts involving foreign entities. Letters were received from the Ministry of Justice, People's Republic of China, on April 9, 2026, and from the Government of India Ministry of Law & Justice Department of Legal Affairs on September 10, 2024.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A Markman hearing was initially scheduled for February 16, 2024. However, a subsequent Docket Control Order from November 27, 2024, reset the Markman Hearing for January 13, 2026, before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The specific outcome of the Markman hearing itself is not detailed in the provided information.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• An initial Docket Control Order on April 5, 2023, set deadlines, including for amended pleadings by December 1, 2023.
• A subsequent Docket Control Order on November 27, 2024, further outlined discovery and motion deadlines: fact discovery was due by December 22, 2025, and dispositive motions by January 5, 2026.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings & Their Effect on Litigation:

• Samsung filed multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641.
  • First IPR Petition: A PTAB petition (IPR2023-01183) was filed on July 21, 2023. The PTAB instituted this IPR on January 22, 2024.
  • Second IPR Petition: Another PTAB petition (IPR2024-00597) was filed on February 22, 2024. Institution for this IPR was granted on August 20, 2024.
• PTAB Unpatentability Rulings: On January 17, 2025, the PTAB issued final written decisions finding U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641 unpatentable in both IPR2023-01183 and IPR2024-00597. These rulings by the PTAB, determining the asserted patent claims to be unpatentable, significantly impact the ongoing district court litigation, typically leading to a stay or dismissal of the infringement claims.

6. Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• As of the current date (August 5, 2026), the district court case 2:22-cv-00401 is listed as "Open." However, given the PTAB's unpatentability findings for Patent US7749641 on January 17, 2025, it is highly probable that the district court litigation has been stayed or dismissed, likely pending any appeal of the PTAB's decisions to the Federal Circuit. The provided information does not contain a specific order of dismissal or final judgment from the district court subsequent to the PTAB's unpatentability decisions. The scheduled deadlines for dispositive motions (January 5, 2026) and a jury trial (April 6, 2026) would likely have been superseded by the PTAB's final decisions invalidating the patent.

I have found a very strong lead for counsel for RJ Technology LLC in case 2:22-cv-00401. Search result (from Ex Parte, a legal analytics platform) explicitly lists:

Michael K. Ng of Kobre & Kim LLP as representing the Patent Owner (RJ Technology LLC) in case 2:22-cv-00401 E.D. TX - RJ Technology LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd.

This is the direct confirmation I needed. The same search result also links Michael K. Ng to representing RJ Technology LLC in another case against Apple Inc. in the Central District of California (8:22-cv-01874), also as "Patent Owner".

Now I can gather the requested details for Michael K. Ng and then review if any other attorneys are clearly listed for the plaintiff in this specific case from reliable sources.

The previous searches for Daniel Scardino and Ryan McBeth show their general patent litigation experience and that their firms are active in the Eastern District of Texas, but no direct link to RJ Technology LLC in this specific case 2:22-cv-00401. Therefore, I will focus on Michael K. Ng, for whom I have a direct confirmed link.

Counsel identified for Plaintiff RJ Technology LLC:

• Name: Michael K. Ng
• Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (likely lead counsel, given his listing in legal analytics for the patent owner in this case).
• Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP
• Office Location: Kobre & Kim has offices in various locations, including New York, Washington, D.C., and several international offices. I will check for his primary office.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Michael Ng has 21 years of experience in various practice areas, including communications, computer architecture and software, and semiconductors. He has represented patent owners in numerous district court cases and appeals to the Federal Circuit. He is specifically listed as representing RJ Technology LLC (Patent Owner) in this case and another against Apple Inc.

I need to find Michael Ng's specific office location. I will do a quick search for "Michael K. Ng Kobre & Kim LLP office location".Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, RJ Technology LLC, in case 2:22-cv-00401 in the Texas Eastern District Court:

• Name: Michael K. Ng
• Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (likely lead counsel, given his listed representation of the patent owner in this specific case in legal analytics).
• Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP
• Office Location: San Francisco, California. Kobre & Kim also has offices in New York, Washington D.C., and other global locations.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Michael Ng is a highly experienced trial lawyer focusing on high-stakes intellectual property and business litigation, including patent and trade secret disputes. He has been recognized as "world-class lead counsel" and among the "most talented US intellectual property lawyers today" by Chambers & Partners. He is known for developing aggressive and creative strategies for patent owners and has secured nine-figure recoveries in litigation. Ng's technical background includes degrees in computer science, engineering management, and cybersecurity, and he previously developed C4ISR software. He is admitted to practice in California, New York, and before numerous federal courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The following counsel represent the defendant(s), Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America Inc., in RJ Technology LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Case No. 2:22-cv-00401 in the Eastern District of Texas:

• Melissa R. Smith

  • Role: Likely local counsel (indicated by "Gillam & Smith LLPLocal")
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP, Longview, Texas
  • Note: Gillam & Smith LLP is a Texas-based firm known for its work in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Andrew T. Gorham

  • Role: Likely local counsel (indicated by "Gillam & Smith LLPLocal")
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP, Longview, Texas
  • Note: Also associated with Gillam & Smith LLP, a firm active in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Grant K. Schmidt

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson
  • Note: Fish & Richardson is a prominent intellectual property law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation.

• Jeffrey Colin

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • Note: Greenberg Traurig is a large, international law firm with a significant intellectual property and litigation practice.

• Andrew R. Sommer

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • Note: Associated with Greenberg Traurig LLP, engaged in patent litigation.

• Richard A. Edlin

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • Note: Associated with Greenberg Traurig LLP, involved in patent litigation matters.

• Jenna Kuh

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • Note: Associated with Greenberg Traurig LLP.

• Soyeon Jeong

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • Note: Associated with Greenberg Traurig LLP.

• Erik Bokar

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • Note: Associated with Greenberg Traurig LLP.

• Mark Bhuptani

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig LLP
  • Note: Associated with Greenberg Traurig LLP.