Litigation

Untitled case

ongoing litigation

2:25-cv-00608

Patents at issue (1)

8923754PTAB: discretionary denial

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

This is an ongoing litigation case filed in 2025 by Massively Broadband LLC in the Texas Eastern District Court, involving US Patent 8923754.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This patent infringement lawsuit was initiated on June 6, 2025, by Massively Broadband LLC (the Plaintiff) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (the Defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The plaintiff, Massively Broadband LLC, appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), having been created in Texas in February 2023 and subsequently receiving the transfer of over 20 U.S. patents from named inventor Theodore ("Ted") S. Rappaport in December 2024. The defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., are well-known operating companies involved in consumer electronics and wireless technology.

The lawsuit alleges infringement of at least twelve patents, which Massively Broadband has categorized into three groups: "Intelligent Wireless Broadband Relay Patents," "Smart Antenna Patents," and "Network Monitoring Patents." While many patents are asserted, the case summary specifically identifies US Patent 8923754. This patent, titled "ULTRAWIDEBAND RADIO TRANSCEIVER/REPEATER AND METHOD THEREOF," describes an ultrawideband radio transceiver/repeater that offers a low-cost infrastructure solution by merging wireless and wired network devices. The accused products are broadly described, as is typical in such cases, encompassing a wide range of Samsung's offerings.

The case is being heard by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a judge known for presiding over a significant number of patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX). The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, often chosen by plaintiffs due to its reputation for a fast-paced docket and perceived plaintiff-friendly procedures. This case is notable as it represents Massively Broadband LLC's first lawsuit after acquiring a portfolio of patents, indicating a potential new wave of assertions from this NPE against major technology companies like Samsung. Furthermore, Samsung Electronics America Inc. has already filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against at least one of the asserted patents, US Patent 8725700, and also against US Patent 8923754, challenging its validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00608)

This patent infringement litigation, filed by Massively Broadband LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., is currently ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under the supervision of District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The case involves U.S. Patent 8,923,754.

Legal Developments in Chronological Order:

  • Filing & Initial Pleadings:
    • 2025-06-06: Massively Broadband LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. The case was assigned Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-00608-JRG.
    • 2025-06-09: Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. was served with the complaint. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. had not yet been served at this point.
    • 2025-06-25: Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the plaintiff's complaint. This motion also included a waiver of foreign service requirements for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., with the agreement that service under the Hague Convention would be waived in exchange for a 91-day extension.
    • 2025-06-25: The Court granted the defendants' unopposed motion, extending the deadline for Samsung to answer or respond to the complaint to September 29, 2025.
    • 2025-09-29: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed their Answer and Counterclaims against Massively Broadband LLC. (Specific details of counterclaims would require direct PACER access, but defendants typically include non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability).
  • Discovery Milestones:
    • 2025-10-21: Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. served their First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-18) to Massively Broadband LLC. These interrogatories sought information regarding infringement contentions and a point-by-point rebuttal of Samsung's invalidity contentions.
    • 2025-10-31: Massively Broadband LLC identified categories of documents it believed were relevant for production by Samsung, focusing on technologies like 4G-LTE, 5G, and Wi-Fi wireless communications, including chips, software, firmware, beamforming, and MIMO functionality.
  • Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
    • 2025-10-10: A Markman/Claim Construction Hearing was set for November 10, 2026, at 9:00 AM before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
    • 2025-10-20: An amended docket control order was filed, noting that a joint notice regarding mediation would be due within fourteen days of the issuance of the Court's claim construction order.
  • Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
    • Prior to 2025-10-20: An Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01565, was initiated related to the patent(s) at issue in the district court case. This IPR is referenced in the district court's amended docket control order. The specific patent challenged in IPR2025-01565 is US Patent 8,923,754. (Further details about the IPR's petitioner, institution decision, or final written decision would require a search of the USPTO's P-TACTS system, which is not directly accessible without account login for detailed case status.)
  • Current Posture:
    • As of May 28, 2026, the litigation is ongoing, with a Markman hearing scheduled for November 10, 2026. There is no indication of a trial, verdict, settlement, or final judgment yet. The case remains active on Judge Gilstrap's docket in the Eastern District of Texas.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

In the ongoing patent infringement case 2:25-cv-00608, Massively Broadband LLC is represented by counsel from K&L Gates LLP and Miller Fair Henry PLLC, with NK Patent Law also identified as representing the patent owner in related proceedings.

The following attorneys have appeared as counsel of record for Massively Broadband LLC:

  • Christopher Michael Verdini

    • Role: Lead Counsel (implied through being listed first for plaintiff)
    • Firm: K&L Gates LLP
    • Office Location: Likely Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as other K&L Gates attorneys listed are from this office. K&L Gates has a significant intellectual property litigation practice.
    • Experience Note: K&L Gates is a global law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation.

  • Patrick J. McElhinny

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: K&L Gates LLP
    • Office Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
    • Experience Note: K&L Gates is a global law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation.

  • Rachel Ellenberger

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: K&L Gates LLP
    • Office Location: Likely Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as other K&L Gates attorneys listed are from this office.
    • Experience Note: K&L Gates is a global law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation.

  • Mark G. Knedeisen

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: K&L Gates LLP
    • Office Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
    • Experience Note: K&L Gates is a global law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation.

  • Anna Shabalov

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: K&L Gates LLP
    • Office Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
    • Experience Note: K&L Gates is a global law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation.

  • Andrea Leigh Fair

    • Role: Local Counsel
    • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (previously associated with Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC)
    • Office Location: Longview, Texas.
    • Experience Note: Practices intellectual property litigation and is admitted to all U.S. District Courts in Texas and the Fifth Circuit.

Additionally, NK Patent Law is identified as the patent owner's law firm for Massively Broadband LLC in Unified Patents Portal entries for a related patent (11063625), which lists 2:25-cv-00608 as a co-pending litigation. While specific attorneys from NK Patent Law directly appearing in the district court docket for Massively Broadband LLC were not explicitly named in the provided search results, their representation in related patent matters suggests an involvement in the overall intellectual property strategy for the plaintiff.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The defendant(s) in Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Case No. 2:25-cv-00608, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc..

Counsel of record representing the defendant(s) include:

  • Melissa Richards Smith

    • Role: Attorney for Defendants (likely local counsel)
    • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP, Marshall, Texas
    • Note: Melissa Smith is a founding partner of Gillam & Smith, LLP, and frequently appears as local counsel in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

  • Kevin Hardy

    • Role: Attorney for Defendants
    • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP - Washington, DC office
    • Note: Kevin Hardy is a partner at Quinn Emanuel and focuses on patent litigation, including matters related to electronics and telecommunications.

  • Sean S. Pak

    • Role: Attorney for Defendants
    • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP - San Francisco office
    • Note: Sean Pak is a partner at Quinn Emanuel with significant experience in high-stakes intellectual property litigation.

  • John Thomas McKee

    • Role: Attorney for Defendants
    • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
    • Note: John Thomas McKee is an attorney at Quinn Emanuel involved in patent and complex commercial litigation.

  • Matthew D. Robson

    • Role: Attorney for Defendants
    • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP - New York office
    • Note: Matthew Robson is a partner at Quinn Emanuel focusing on patent litigation.

  • Alex Verbin Chachkes

    • Role: Attorney for Defendants
    • Firm: Chachkes Law PLLC
    • Note: Alex Chachkes practices patent litigation.

  • Patrick J. McElhinny

    • Role: Attorney for Defendants
    • Firm: K&L Gates LLP - Pittsburgh office
    • Note: Patrick McElhinny is a partner and leader of the intellectual property litigation practice at K&L Gates, with extensive experience in patent disputes.

  • Mark G. Knedeisen

    • Role: Attorney for Defendants
    • Firm: K&L Gates LLP - Pittsburgh office
    • Note: Mark Knedeisen is a partner at K&L Gates, focusing on intellectual property litigation.

  • Christopher Michael Verdini

    • Role: Attorney for Defendants
    • Firm: K&L Gates LLP
    • Note: Christopher Verdini is a partner at K&L Gates, practicing intellectual property litigation.

  • Anna Shabalov

    • Role: Attorney for Defendants
    • Firm: K&L Gates LLP - Pittsburgh office
    • Note: Anna Shabalov is an attorney at K&L Gates, involved in intellectual property litigation.

  • Rachel Ellenberger

    • Role: Attorney for Defendants
    • Firm: K&L Gates LLP
    • Note: Rachel Ellenberger is an attorney at K&L Gates, focusing on patent litigation.