Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00233, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by ImberaTek, LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. The case has since been dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff, ImberaTek, LLC, is an Ideahub, Inc. subsidiary and is characterized as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE). ImberaTek acquired the asserted patents from GE Embedded Electronics (formerly Imbera Electronics) in early 2020. GE Embedded Electronics was a Finnish company known for developing advanced embedded electronics packaging technology and manufacturing solutions. The defendant, Samsung, is a major technology company.

The lawsuit accused Samsung of infringing six patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,368,201, through the provision of various smartphones, tablets, and virtual reality headsets. Specifically, the allegedly infringing products were said to incorporate "infringing processors and/or other semiconductor components, such as, for example, [Samsung's] Exynos 7420 and Exynos 9810 system-on-chips ("SoC"), as well as power management integrated circuits embedding [Qualcomm's] PMX55, PM8150C, PM8250, PM8350, and PM8350C". The patents generally relate to "techniques to leverage semiconductors". U.S. Patent No. 8,368,201 pertains to semiconductor technology, aligning with the accused products.

The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas. This venue has historically been a popular forum for patent litigation, often referred to as a "rocket docket," due to its plaintiff-friendly procedural rules and accelerated trial schedules. Although the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision restricted patent venue, plaintiffs have adapted by sometimes targeting foreign affiliates to maintain jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas. The case is notable for exemplifying an NPE's assertion pattern, as ImberaTek, a subsidiary of Ideahub, sued a major operating company, Samsung, over patents acquired from another entity, highlighting common dynamics in patent assertion campaigns. Samsung had reportedly been aware of the asserted patents since at least February 4, 2020. The litigation concluded relatively quickly, being dismissed with prejudice on January 17, 2023, following a joint motion to dismiss.

Patent Infringement Litigation: ImberaTek LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd (E.D. Tex. 2:22-cv-00233)

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by ImberaTek LLC against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,368,201 and five other related patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: ImberaTek LLC filed its complaint on June 24, 2022, in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The lawsuit accuses Samsung of infringing six patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,368,201, through the provision of various smartphones, tablets, and virtual reality headsets. The complaint was filed by Latham & Watkins LLP and Ward & Smith, P.A. on behalf of ImberaTek.
• Notice of Awareness: ImberaTek alleged that Samsung had been aware of the asserted patents since at least February 4, 2020, when ImberaTek provided a letter asserting that Samsung's products infringed four of the patents, including 8,368,201.

Current Status:
As of the latest available information (May 21, 2026), details regarding specific pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR outcomes), claim construction (Markman) orders, discovery milestones, trial events, verdict, post-trial motions, or a final disposition (settlement, dismissal, or judgment) for case 2:22-cv-00233 are not readily available in the public search results. The case remains classified as "Litigation."

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
While the search results indicate that IPRs were filed in related cases involving ImberaTek and other defendants, no specific IPR proceedings directly linked to patent 8,368,201 within the context of ImberaTek LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, 2:22-cv-00233, were identified. One result mentions that IPRs were filed on the '944 patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,989,944), another patent asserted in this litigation, by Unimicron. However, the outcome or effect of such IPRs on this specific litigation is not detailed.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, ImberaTek, LLC, in the patent infringement case 2:22-cv-00233 in the Texas Eastern District Court:

Latham & Watkins LLP

• Amit Makker (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Latham & Watkins LLP (Office location not specified in search results for this case, but the firm has a global presence with significant IP litigation in US District Courts including the Eastern District of Texas).
  • Experience: Represents clients in complex intellectual property disputes across high-technology sectors, with experience in all phases of patent litigation including claim construction, summary judgment, and trial in district courts, the ITC, and PTAB.

• Additional attorneys from Latham & Watkins LLP may be involved as lead counsel, as the firm is known for fielding teams led by trial counsel experienced in the relevant jurisdiction, including the Eastern District of Texas.

Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (listed in the complaint as Ward & Smith, P.A.)

• Johnny Ward (Local Counsel / Trial Attorney)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
  • Experience: Founder of Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, with a national reputation for successfully trying numerous complex patent infringement cases to verdict in East Texas, securing major courtroom victories against recognizable companies.

• Wesley Hill (Local Counsel / Trial Attorney)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
  • Experience: Name partner at Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, recognized for excellence in intellectual property litigation and highly capable of handling patent actions from start to finish.

• T. John Ward (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
  • Experience: Former United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas for 12 years, during which he presided over hundreds of patent cases and conducted over 150 claim construction hearings.

Defense Counsel Identified in ImberaTek LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al

In the patent infringement case ImberaTek LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-cv-00233), several law firms represented the defendant(s), Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al. The case, which involved patent 8,368,201 among others, was filed on June 24, 2022, and terminated on January 17, 2023, with a joint motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice.

Based on available records, the following attorneys and firms were involved in representing the defendant(s):

• Melissa Richards Smith

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP
  • Office Location: Tyler, Texas
  • Note: Gillam & Smith, LLP is a well-known East Texas firm frequently involved in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, often serving as local counsel or co-counsel.

• Gregory S. Arovas

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Note: Gregory Arovas is a partner at Kirkland & Ellis and is noted for his extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the technology sector.

• Todd M. Friedman

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Note: Todd Friedman is a partner at Kirkland & Ellis with a focus on intellectual property litigation.

• Alex R. Henriques

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
  • Office Location: New York, NY
  • Note: Alex Henriques is associated with Kirkland & Ellis and practices in intellectual property litigation.

• Austin Chun Teng

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP
  • Office Location: (Specific office not detailed, but likely New York or other major IP hub)
  • Note: Austin Teng is an attorney with Kirkland & Ellis, involved in intellectual property matters.

• Bao Nguyen

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis Llp
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Bao Nguyen is a partner at Kirkland & Ellis, with experience in patent litigation.

• Barbara Nora Barath

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Debevoise & Plimpton
  • Office Location: (Specific office not detailed, often New York or other major legal markets)
  • Note: Barbara Barath is an attorney associated with Debevoise & Plimpton.

Additionally, Latham & Watkins LLP (specifically their D.C. office) is mentioned as counsel for the defendants. While the specific attorneys from Latham & Watkins are not individually listed in the provided search snippets, the firm's involvement is noted. Latham & Watkins has a significant intellectual property litigation practice.