Untitled case

This patent infringement lawsuit, captioned SoftView, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., case number 2:25-cv-00246, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff, SoftView, LLC, is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Washington State, appearing to operate as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE) given its history of asserting patents against major technology companies. The defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC) and its American subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), both operating companies known for consumer electronics and mobile devices.

The accused products are a broad range of Samsung electronic products, including smartphones and tablets, that allegedly infringe the asserted patents through their manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and importation. The primary patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,519,729, broadly covers mobile devices designed to support resolution-independent scalable display of Internet content, enabling web pages to be scaled (zoomed) and panned efficiently on smaller screen sizes through software-based processing. Other patents asserted in the complaint include U.S. Patent Nos. 7,844,889, 10,083,154, 8,533,628, and 7,461,353.

The case is currently active in the Marshall Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is particularly notable in patent litigation due to its reputation as a "rocket docket," known for its expedited trial schedules and a historically plaintiff-friendly environment, attracting a significant number of patent cases. The case is noteworthy because it represents a renewed assertion by SoftView against Samsung, following previous litigation, and aligns with the trend of NPEs leveraging the Eastern District of Texas for patent enforcement. While specific inter partes review (IPR) filings directly against patent 9,519,729 are not readily apparent from current searches, SoftView's related patents have been subject to PTAB proceedings by entities such as Google, indicating ongoing challenges to the validity of patents within SoftView's portfolio.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for SoftView, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Case Number: 2:25-cv-00246
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Patents at issue: 9,519,729 (among others)
Status: Active

Chronological Overview of Developments:

2025-02-28: Complaint Filed.
Plaintiff SoftView, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,519,729, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 7,844,889, 10,083,154, 8,533,628, and 7,461,353. SoftView claims that Samsung's mobile devices, including various Galaxy S and Note series, infringe its patents related to displaying and optimizing internet content on mobile environments, such as zooming, panning, and scalable display technologies within the Samsung Internet Browser and Google Chrome.

Initial Pleadings & Pre-trial Motions:
As of May 29, 2026, specific details regarding Samsung's answer, counterclaims, or any substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment in this specific case (2:25-cv-00246) are not widely available through public web searches.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
Publicly available information does not yet specify a Markman hearing or order in SoftView, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00246). While a search result mentioned a "Markman Order, SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. et al" dated June 11, 2025, referencing case 2:25-cv-00246, this appears to be a misattribution or reference to a different, albeit related, SoftView litigation, rather than a confirmed Markman order in the Samsung case. Given the relatively recent filing date of February 28, 2025, a Markman order by June 2025 would be an expedited timeline.

Discovery Milestones:
No significant discovery milestones with publicly reported strategic significance have been identified for this case.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:
The case is currently active and has not yet reached the trial, verdict, or post-trial motion stages.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
The case remains active as of the current date (May 29, 2026).

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• 2026-03-05: IPR Petition Filed (IPR2026-00282). Google LLC filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00282, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,519,729. SoftView LLC is the Patent Owner in this proceeding. The IPR is currently listed as "Pending" at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Related IPRs: Google LLC also filed other IPR petitions against SoftView LLC's patents asserted in the district court litigation, including IPR2026-00281 against U.S. Patent No. 10,083,154, and IPR2026-00284, which are also pending and linked to the district court case.

Effect of IPRs on Litigation:
As the IPR proceedings are still in the "Pending" status, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has yet to issue institution decisions. Such decisions typically occur within six months of the IPR petition filing date. The institution or non-institution of these IPRs could significantly impact the district court litigation, potentially leading to a stay of the district court case or narrowing the claims at issue.

Plaintiff SoftView, LLC is represented by attorneys from Armond Wilson LLP and a group of local counsel primarily from Miller Fair Henry PLLC and Caldwell Cassady & Curry, PC.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s):

• Douglas R. Wilson

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel (Founding Partner)
  • Firm: Armond Wilson LLP, Austin, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Nationally recognized trial attorney specializing in intellectual property disputes, including patents, trade secrets, and antitrust; frequently handles cases at all levels of the federal judiciary and before the PTAB.

• Michelle E. Armond

  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel (Founding Partner)
  • Firm: Armond Wilson LLP, Newport Beach, California (also Austin, Texas by appointment).
  • Experience Note: An intellectual property trial attorney with extensive experience litigating patents, trademarks, and trade secrets for Fortune 500 companies and innovators, and a recognized authority on patent law issues.

• Andrea Leigh Fair

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC), Longview, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Recognized for excellence in intellectual property litigation, including securing significant jury verdicts in patent infringement cases, and frequently assists lead counsel in East Texas trials.

• Bradley Wayne Caldwell

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry, PC, Dallas, Texas (Firm information based on common knowledge of attorneys listed with this firm, but specific office location for Caldwell in this context not explicitly stated in search results.)
  • Experience Note: A prominent patent litigator, with his firm frequently leading legal teams in high-stakes patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Jason Dodd Cassady

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry, PC, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: A patent litigation attorney frequently involved in complex intellectual property disputes.

• Aisha Mahmood Haley

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry, PC, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: An attorney with experience in patent litigation, contributing to legal teams in federal court.

• Justin Thomas Nemunaitis

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry, PC, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Involved in significant patent infringement cases, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.

• James F. Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry, PC, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: An attorney who has made appearances for plaintiffs in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Andrew Thomas Langford

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Caldwell Cassady & Curry, PC, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience Note: An attorney who has made appearances for plaintiffs in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

While the initial complaint filed on February 28, 2025, identified SoftView LLC, with Douglas R. Wilson and Michelle E. Armond as attorneys, subsequent notices of appearance for this specific case on March 3 and March 5, 2025, list the attorneys from Miller Fair Henry PLLC and Caldwell Cassady & Curry, PC. These firms are well-known for their local counsel roles in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. Douglas R. Wilson and Michelle E. Armond, as founding partners of Armond Wilson LLP, are recognized as lead patent litigators, and their firm is linked to SoftView LLC in PTAB proceedings related to this case. Their role as lead counsel for SoftView, LLC is inferred from these connections and their firms' stated practice.

The defendant in SoftView, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Case No. 2:25-cv-00246), Samsung, is represented by attorneys from Covington & Burling LLP and local counsel.

Here's a breakdown of the defense counsel:

Covington & Burling LLP (Lead Counsel)

• Kevin B. Collins (Partner, Washington D.C. office): Listed as counsel for Samsung.
• Richard L. Rainey (Partner, Washington D.C. office): Listed as counsel for Samsung.
• Brian Bieluch (Partner, Washington D.C. office): Listed as counsel for Samsung.
• Patrick N. Flynn (Partner, Palo Alto office): Listed as counsel for Samsung.

Gillam & Smith, LLP (Local Counsel)

• Melissa Richards Smith (Partner): Listed as counsel for Samsung. Her firm, Gillam & Smith, LLP, is based in Tyler, Texas, and frequently serves as local counsel in Eastern District of Texas patent cases.

Samsung In-House Counsel

While not formally appearing as "counsel of record" in the same capacity as outside counsel, several in-house attorneys at Samsung manage the company's patent litigation dockets and often work closely with external legal teams. These include:

• Matthew Bathon (Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics): Responsible for coordinating Samsung's ITC and district court dockets.
• Phillip Lee (Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics US IP Center): A veteran litigator with experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing, he manages a docket of patent cases with outside counsel.
• Tim Jezek (Principal Legal Counsel, Samsung Electronics America): Focuses on IP litigation and related policy issues.

It's worth noting that other firms, such as DLA Piper, Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing (AZA), and Miller Fair Henry, have represented Samsung in other Eastern District of Texas patent cases, securing victories or assisting with trial strategy. However, the PACER Monitor entry for this specific case, 2:25-cv-00246, lists the attorneys from Covington & Burling LLP and Gillam & Smith, LLP as counsel for Samsung.