Untitled case

Patent Infringement Litigation: MyPort, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

This patent infringement lawsuit, case number 2:22-cv-00114, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a prominent venue for patent litigation, before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The litigation, initiated by MyPort, Inc. against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., asserted infringement of three U.S. patents: 9,832,017, 10,237,067, and 10,721,066. The accused products comprised a wide array of Samsung's "Galaxy" devices, including 29 distinct models such as flagship smartphones, 5G variants, foldables, and the Galaxy Book laptop line.

MyPort, Inc. positions itself as a pioneer in pervasive wireless technologies, holding a substantial patent portfolio in fields like smartphones/tablets, smart TVs, data mining, and internet communication. The company's founder and president, William H. Chang, is noted as a prolific inventor in smart wireless devices. While MyPort develops its own products, its innovations are also presented as valuable for licensing in the wireless and mobile sectors. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a South Korean multinational giant, is a leading global producer of a vast range of consumer and industrial electronics, including smartphones, tablets, televisions, and semiconductors, making it a frequent defendant in patent infringement suits.

The asserted U.S. Patent 9,832,017 generally relates to methods and systems for managing user information and data. U.S. Patent 10,237,067 pertains to systems and methods for data mining user information, and U.S. Patent 10,721,066 also concerns apparatuses and methods for data mining user information. The case was filed on April 15, 2022, and ultimately concluded on February 20, 2024, when it was dismissed with prejudice via a joint stipulation between the parties. This dismissal with prejudice means MyPort is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Samsung, with each party bearing its own costs. The Eastern District of Texas is known for its expedited dockets and perceived plaintiff-friendly environment, making it a common choice for patent assertion entities (PAEs). The broad scope of accused products in this case and its eventual dismissal with prejudice after 676 days of litigation, longer than the median for patent cases in the district, indicate significant pre-trial activity and a notable resolution in the context of NPE assertions against major technology companies. While there was a motion for limited third-party discovery related to a license defense involving Google software, suggesting potential IPR implications or licensing discussions, the ultimate resolution was a stipulated dismissal rather than a judgment on the merits or a stay pending IPR.

Here is a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome for the patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent 9,832,017 in the Eastern District of Texas, case number 2:22-cv-00114.

Case Overview:

• Caption: MyPort, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
• Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
• Case Number: 2:22-cv-00114
• Judge: Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap
• Patents Asserted: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,832,017, 10,237,067, and 10,721,066
• Defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Key Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2022-04-15): MyPort, Inc. initiated the patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., asserting infringement of three U.S. patents, including 9,832,017. The complaint was filed on April 15, 2022. While specific dates for Samsung's answer and counterclaims are not provided in the available snippets for this particular case, Samsung typically files answers and counterclaims in such litigations.

2. Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review (2023-06-13): Defendants Samsung filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of inter partes review (IPR) petitions on the asserted patents. This motion (Dkt. No. 73) was denied by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on June 13, 2023. Judge Gilstrap is known to routinely deny such motions when the district court trial is scheduled before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) final decision.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Proceedings (Undated): The case progressed to and completed the claim construction process, including a Markman hearing. However, the specific date of the Markman hearing or the detailed outcomes of the claim construction for this case are not provided in the search results.

4. Discovery Motion (2023-11-27): Samsung filed an "Opposed Motion to Conduct Limited Third Party Discovery Related to License Defense After the Close of Fact Discovery" (Dkt. No. 98). This motion was denied by the court on November 27, 2023. This indicates active discovery efforts and disputes throughout the litigation.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (Status Unspecified): While a motion to stay pending IPRs was denied, implying IPR petitions were either filed or anticipated, the provided search results do not specify if any IPRs challenging U.S. Patent 9,832,017 were actually instituted or reached a final decision. The denial of the stay meant the district court case continued without awaiting PTAB's resolution.

Outcome (2024-02-20):

The litigation concluded on February 20, 2024, when the case was dismissed with prejudice. This dismissal occurred via a joint stipulation of dismissal filed by both parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted the stipulation, dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice and ordering each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. A dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring MyPort from re-asserting the same claims against Samsung in any future proceeding. The duration of the case was 676 days, which is noted as longer than the median for patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas, suggesting substantial pre-trial activity.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff MyPort, Inc. Identified in Patent Infringement Case 2:22-cv-00114

In the patent infringement case MyPort, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-cv-00114), the following attorneys represented the plaintiff, MyPort, Inc.:

• Franklin D. Kang

  • Role: Counsel for MyPort, Inc.
  • Firm: One LLP
  • Office Location: Culver City, CA; Newport Beach, CA
  • Note: Franklin D. Kang is a patent attorney with extensive experience in intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, and unfair competition matters, representing high-tech clients across the U.S. and Asia. He has been recognized as a Super Lawyer in intellectual property litigation.

• John Edward Lord

  • Role: Counsel for MyPort, Inc.
  • Firm: (Information not found in public records via web search for this specific case context)
  • Note: Additional specific patent litigation experience for John Edward Lord in the context of this case was not immediately available through web search.

• Michael David Ricketts

  • Role: Counsel for MyPort, Inc.
  • Firm: (Information not found in public records via web search for this specific case context)
  • Note: Additional specific patent litigation experience for Michael David Ricketts in the context of this case was not immediately available through web search.

• Nathan Louis Levenson

  • Role: Counsel for MyPort, Inc.
  • Firm: (Information not found in public records via web search for this specific case context)
  • Note: Additional specific patent litigation experience for Nathan Louis Levenson in the context of this case was not immediately available through web search.

The case, which involved U.S. Patent 9,832,017, along with US10237067B2 and US10721066B2, was filed on April 15, 2022, and was dismissed with prejudice on February 20, 2024, via a joint stipulation of dismissal.

The following attorneys were identified as counsel of record representing the defendant(s), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., in MyPort, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:22-cv-00114 in the Eastern District of Texas:

• Jonathan Robert Miller (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C. (Reston, VA)
  • Note: Partner focusing on patent preparation and prosecution, with prior experience as a Patent Examiner at the USPTO.

• Michael E. Jones (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Jones IP Law (Location not specified, but has worked in White Plains, NY previously)
  • Note: Founder and managing member of Jones Intellectual Property, experienced in patent litigation across various forums including District Courts, the Federal Circuit, ITC, and PTAB, covering a broad technological spectrum. Co-authored articles on patent law, including "Is Apple V. Samsung The Beginning Of The End For Patents?"

• Franklin D. Kang (Counsel)

  • Firm: One LLP
  • Note: Patent attorney with 19 years of experience, practicing in areas including mechanical engineering, manufacturing, e-commerce, and design.

While the role of "local counsel" is often filled in the Eastern District of Texas, a specific local counsel for Samsung was not explicitly identified in the available search results for this particular case. However, it's worth noting that the firm Miller Fair Henry, and specifically name partner Andrea Fair, has served as local counsel for other plaintiffs against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas.