Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Patent infringement action filed by Fingertip Mouse Corporation against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting U.S. Patent 10,963,070. The complaint's exhibits include a claim chart for 10,963,070, and the case is listed as open/pending. The reported filing date of 2026-08-26 is subject to a date discrepancy noted in the source.

Omni MedSci asserts eight patents, including US 12,588,820, against Samsung. The '820 is asserted at least in claims 9 and 10 against Samsung's Galaxy XR headset based on direct time-of-flight sensing. Relief sought includes declaratory judgment of infringement, damages, permanent injunction, and attorney's fees.

Lepton Computing LLC alleges that Samsung's Galaxy Z Fold and Z Flip series smartphones infringe on nine patents related to foldable technology, including US 11,693,450. The plaintiff is seeking both monetary damages and a permanent injunction to halt sales of the accused devices.

Mobility IP Holdings, Inc. sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, asserting seven patents including US 8,151,345. The accused products include Samsung Galaxy S, A, Note, Xcover, Z Fold, Z Flip, Watch, and Tab series running Samsung Pay/Samsung Wallet. Service was completed in March 2026, answers were filed June 23, 2026, and a scheduling order was entered June 24, 2026; no merits ruling has been reported.

SureCell Transactions LLC filed a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The complaint asserts six patents, including US 11,989,612, and accuses Galaxy smartphones, wearables, tablets, Samsung Pay/Wallet, and related payment apps. The case is pending.

Lawsuit filed by Malikie Innovations Limited against Samsung entities asserting U.S. Patent 8,666,062. The case is in its early stages, with preliminary motions pending.

Netlist, Inc. filed an ITC complaint alleging infringement of its patent(s), including US10217523B1, by Samsung entities, Google LLC, and Super Micro Computer, Inc. The investigation was instituted and is pending before an Administrative Law Judge.

Network-1 Technologies, Inc. filed this patent infringement suit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. concerning US patent 12166869. The court denied Samsung's motion to focus asserted patent claims, and a Markman hearing is set for December 14, 2026, with jury selection for June 7, 2027.

This lawsuit was initiated by Massively Broadband LLC against Samsung entities as part of a patent litigation campaign. The case is currently active and ongoing.

A patent infringement lawsuit filed on June 6, 2025, involving the assertion of twelve patents. US patent 9,667,337 is asserted as one of five patents categorized as 'Intelligent Wireless Broadband Relay Patents' in the complaint.

This is an ongoing patent infringement lawsuit where Massively Broadband LLC asserts twelve patents, including US 8,725,700, against Samsung. A jury selection is scheduled for May 17, 2027.

A lawsuit filed by Massively Broadband LLC against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit involves twelve patents, including the '794 patent.

Massively Broadband LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. asserting patent 11063625. The case is ongoing in the Texas Eastern District Court, with a trial date scheduled for April 19, 2027.

Massively Broadband LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The ongoing case alleges infringement of a dozen patents, including US Patent 10797783.

Patent infringement case filed by Netlist against Samsung entities. On March 6, 2026, the court ordered a stay in the case.

Maxell, Ltd. filed a patent infringement suit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The case is ongoing, with Samsung having filed a motion to stay proceedings pending inter partes reviews, including one related to US patent 10812646.

Snapaid Ltd. filed a patent infringement complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., initiating an active litigation.

SnapAid, Ltd. filed a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting eight related patents including U.S. 10,009,537. Samsung filed counterclaims including a declaratory judgment that the '537 patent is invalid. The case is pending, with trial set for April 2027.

PayGeo, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., asserting multiple patents, including US10796296.

A complaint for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. has been filed by SoftView, LLC.

Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. filed this patent infringement suit against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. asserting US patent 11716171. The case has been consolidated into 2:25-cv-00069 and is set for trial on August 17, 2026.

Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. This case has been consolidated into lead case 2:25-cv-00069-JRG-RSP in the Eastern District of Texas, is open, and a jury trial has been demanded with selection set for August 17, 2026.

Radian Memory Systems LLC sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting seven patents, none of which is the 118 patent. The 118 patent is a parent of three of the asserted patents. Radian withdrew its corrected preliminary-injunction motion and moved to dismiss without prejudice; Samsung opposed, and the outcome was not final in the retrieved sources.

Radian Memory Systems asserts seven U.S. patents against Samsung Electronics entities. Public documents identified US 11,544,183 and the '656 and '772 patents as asserted, but the narrative could not confirm that US 9,785,572 was among the seven patents-in-suit.

Omni MedSci, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas against Samsung, Fossil, OnePlus, and Ōura Health Oy, asserting patent 12193790. The case is pending, with defendants having moved for a stay.

The complaint alleges that Samsung's Galaxy Buds headphones and Level Box and Sound Tower speaker lines infringe on three of One-E-Way's patents, including the '627 patent.

This active district court case, filed by Xifi Networks R&D, Inc. against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., is ongoing. Defendants' motion to stay proceedings pending Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post-Grant Review (PGR) was denied, and trial is scheduled for October 19, 2026.

XiFi Networks R&D, Inc. sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. for patent infringement. The case is active, with a trial set for October 19, 2026, and a claim construction hearing scheduled for April 29, 2026.

Xifi Networks R&D, Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics. The court denied Samsung's motion to stay proceedings, and the case is ongoing with a jury trial set for October 2026.

This is an active infringement lawsuit filed by VB Assets LLC against Samsung. According to the narrative, the case is in its early stages.

This case was stayed on August 20, 2025, pending the outcome of related litigation in the Northern District of California and a related IPR proceeding at the PTAB.

This active case targets Samsung's Bixby 2.0 products for patent infringement.

A patent infringement claim filed by Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Freedom Patents, LLC sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Harman International Industries, Inc. for patent infringement. The case was dismissed with prejudice by Chief Judge Amos L. Mazzant, with each party bearing its own attorney fees, costs, and expenses.

Staton Techiya appealed the district court's final judgment holding the asserted patents unenforceable. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal on December 20, 2024, pursuant to a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal.

This patent infringement case is currently open.

Harbor Island Dynamic sued Samsung for infringement of the '886 patent and related patents based on Samsung's Antenna Switch and Coupler die (e.g., PK5562_01), allegedly used in the Galaxy S22 Ultra. The case was stayed pending the PTAB IPR proceedings.

The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 30, 2025, following a joint motion by the parties, which suggests a settlement was reached.

The complaint asserts that Samsung's "Samsung Pay" technology utilizes methods protected by U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828.

Maxell sued Samsung for infringement of multiple patents, including U.S. 11,017,815. A May 2025 jury found willful infringement of '815 claims 1, 21, and 24 and awarded $111,720,099 total, but the court later granted JMOL of non-infringement for the three tried patents, overturning the verdict; Maxell appealed.

Chien-Min Sung sued Samsung entities for infringing US Patent 8974270, among others, by using third-party pad conditioners in their CMP processes. The case is currently stayed.

This case is currently active and is part of the same assertion campaign as the case against Meta Platforms, Inc.

Daedalus Prime LLC asserted eight patents, including the '080 patent, against Samsung and TSMC in the Eastern District of Texas. The case was stayed in October 2022 under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 pending a parallel ITC investigation; it was consolidated with 2:22-cv-00353 and 2:22-cv-00354 and then deconsolidated per the stay order.

MRI's complaint asserted infringement of the '595 patent (among others) and sought injunctive and monetary relief. A parallel IPR invalidated the challenged claims, which may affect this case's viability.

MRI sued Samsung entities in the Eastern District of Texas asserting five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,013,142. The docket is closed as of March 2024, but the specific disposition is unverified.

Netlist asserted the '912 patent with U.S. 11,093,417 and 10,268,608 against Samsung. On Nov. 22, 2024, the jury found infringement of at least one claim of each patent, willful, and awarded a $118,000,000 lump-sum royalty; judgment was entered Dec. 2, 2024.

An inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the PTAB, initiated by Samsung, challenging US Patent 9946369, which has reached a Final Written Decision.

Patent infringement suit asserting U.S. Patents 11,244,666, 11,217,237, 11,057,701, and 11,039,259. The court consolidated it into lead case 2:21-cv-00413 and entered final judgment on June 21, 2024, holding the asserted claims unenforceable against Samsung due to unclean hands and dismissing Techiya's claims with prejudice; Techiya appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Netlist sued Samsung for infringement of the '918 patent and other patents. A jury found willful infringement and no invalidity, awarding a composite $303,150,000, with $147,225,000 allocated jointly to the '918 and '054 patents. Final judgment entered August 11, 2023; Samsung's appeal is pending.

Netlist sued Samsung entities for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. The '339 patent was one of five patents tried, with asserted claims 1, 8, and 9. A jury found willful infringement of all five patents and awarded $303.15 million; final judgment was entered Aug. 11, 2023. Samsung appealed, and the parties later settled all pending litigation in 2026.

Patent infringement action asserting the '082 patent along with nine other U.S. patents identified in the narrative only by last three digits, against Samsung products including Galaxy Buds+, Galaxy S20, and Bixby. After a March 2024 bench trial, the court found Techiya's asserted claims unenforceable against Samsung due to unclean hands; final judgment entered June 21, 2024, dismissed the infringement claims with prejudice and named Samsung the prevailing party. Consolidated with 2:22-cv-00053-JRG-RSP.

Parus sued Samsung asserting the '705, '455, and '402 patents. The case closed on February 22, 2023, consistent with settlement or dismissal.

Parus asserted the '455, '705, and '402 patents against Samsung in the Western District of Texas. Joint claim construction proceeded through late 2022 with coordinated defendants, but the final disposition was not confirmed.

'307 asserted. Ordered transferred to N.D. Cal. (2022-11-28); re-docketed as N.D. Cal. 4:22-cv-07515. Stayed pending IPRs; reported still pending as of mid-2024.

AlmondNet and Intent IQ sued Samsung and AdGear in W.D. Tex. asserting the ’878 patent, including claims 13–18 and 20 per preliminary invalidity contentions. The case was transferred to N.D. Cal. on November 28, 2022.

AlmondNet and Intent IQ sued Samsung entities and AdGear in W.D. Tex., asserting multiple patents including the '164 patent. The case was transferred to the Northern District of California by sealed order dated Nov. 28, 2022.

Patent infringement action by AlmondNet and Intent IQ against Samsung and related entities in W.D. Tex.; related N.D. Cal. action lists the '198 patent among the asserted patents.

All claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses were dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. No damages or injunctive relief were awarded, reflecting a negotiated resolution.

Smart Mobile Technologies LLC asserted U.S. 9,756,168 among twelve U.S. patents against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The case was dismissed with prejudice on July 15, 2024, under a joint motion to vacate the claim construction order and dismiss with prejudice, with no damages or injunctive relief awarded.

Smart Mobile Technologies LLC sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. for patent infringement, asserting 12 patents including US 9,049,119, against Galaxy devices. Samsung's motion to transfer to N.D. Cal. was denied, and the case remained pending in W.D. Tex. with parallel IPRs informing the schedule.

Patent infringement suit asserting the '946 patent as part of a larger portfolio against Samsung entities. The court granted a joint motion to vacate the claim-construction order and dismiss with prejudice on/about July 15, 2024; each party bore its own costs.

Smart Mobile Technologies LLC sued Samsung entities in W.D. Tex., with the '653 patent among 12 asserted patents. The case was dismissed with prejudice on July 15, 2024, each party bearing its own costs.

Smart Mobile Technologies sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in W.D. Tex. involving the '434 patent. The case was dismissed with prejudice on July 15, 2024; the earlier claim-construction order was vacated, and each party bore its own costs.

Patent infringement suit asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,442,501 against Samsung entities. The court granted the parties' joint motion to vacate the claim construction order and dismiss with prejudice on July 15, 2024; all claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses were dismissed with prejudice, each party bearing its own costs.

2021 wireless networking campaign case in W.D. Tex. against Samsung; consolidated with 6:23-cv-00125, and Samsung filed IPR2022-00613. Listed by XR as involving the '376 patent in IPR2022-00613 mandatory notices.

Proxense sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, asserting several patents including US 9,049,188 against Samsung Pay/Galaxy devices. The case was resolved before trial by consent judgment/stipulated dismissal with prejudice, closing January 19, 2023, with no court ruling on validity or infringement of the '188 patent.

Power2B, Inc. sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,610,675 and U.S. Patents 8,624,850, 9,317,170, 9,569,093, and 10,156,931. Power2B's infringement contentions asserted claims 1, 11, and 13 of the '675 patent. The case was substantially overtaken by parallel PTAB proceedings, and no final merits judgment on the '675 patent was found in the narrative.

Suit against Samsung accusing Galaxy S10/S20 series smartphones and Galaxy Watch devices of infringing the '791 patent; terminated by voluntary dismissal in August 2021.

RFCyber Corp. sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. for patent infringement concerning US patent 10600046 in the Texas Eastern District Court.

RFCyber sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in E.D. Tex. (Marshall) as a member case to 2:20-cv-00274. A second mediation was successful on 2022-02-10; a joint motion to stay and notice of settlement were filed the same day, and the case was stayed 2022-02-11.

Member case consolidated into 2:20-cv-00274. Docket shows termination on Mar. 6, 2023; filings reference a confidential settlement agreement, and Samsung's '855 IPR was denied institution.

Section 337 investigation filed by DivX against Samsung, LG, MediaTek/MStar, Realtek, and TCL entities. The asserted patents included the '486 patent. Realtek was terminated in 2021; the investigation was terminated as to TCL in May 2022 based on a settlement agreement.

Power2B, Inc. filed this patent infringement suit against Samsung, which is currently active and involved claim construction, with a construction adopted on November 10, 2021.

SpaceTime3D sued Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of the '654 patent and related patents. The case was terminated/closed; a Markman claim-construction order issued December 7, 2020, and a motion to stay was denied December 4, 2020.

Patent infringement suit by Acorn Semi against Samsung entities. The patents actually asserted were U.S. Patent Nos. 7,084,423; 8,766,336; 9,209,261; 9,461,167; 9,905,691; and 10,090,395; the '542 patent was not asserted. A May 19, 2021 jury verdict found infringement and awarded $25 million; Samsung appealed (Appeal No. 22-1499), and the parties settled in January 2023 while the appeal was pending.

Parus filed an infringement action asserting U.S. Patent 7,076,431 and U.S. Patent 9,451,084. The case was consolidated into 6:19-cv-00432-ADA on Dec. 20, 2019.

Kannuu alleged that Samsung's Smart TVs and Blu-ray players infringed on its patents, including the '393 patent. The case was stayed pending IPR proceedings, but as of July 2025 was described as active, with the court granting Kannuu leave to file a second amended complaint to add new patents.

The district court case is ongoing and involves several patents asserted by Kannuu against Samsung for alleged infringement by various Samsung Smart TVs and Blu-ray players. U.S. Patent 11,200,252 was asserted in this action after the original complaint was filed.

Patent infringement and breach of NDA action. The original complaint asserted the '393, '852, '354, and '264 patents; the First Amended Complaint added the '579 patent. The case was stayed pending IPRs; the original patents were invalidated, and in 2025 the court granted leave to amend to substitute two newly-issued patents. Ongoing as of the record.

Realtime asserted the '462 patent against Samsung entities. The USPTO AO-120 form listed '8,634,462' as patent #5. The case was resolved.

Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC asserted seven Realtime patents, including the '907 patent, against Samsung entities in the Eastern District of Texas. The AO-120 form lists the '907 patent as patent no. 2.

District court action filed 2018-03-09. The amended complaint expressly asserts RE46777, identifying it as the reissue of U.S. Patent No. 8,634,462. Final disposition not confirmed in retrieved sources.

FISI asserted the '319 patent against Samsung in E.D. Tex. A claim construction order construed the '319 Patent family terms. The case was later settled.

FISI asserted the '111 patent against Samsung entities in E.D. Tex. The court issued a claim-construction order on 2018-01-31 construing 'identification signal,' 'USB adapter,' and §112 ¶6 means terms; the case settled.

FISI sued Samsung entities in E.D. Tex., asserting the '936 patent among the patents-in-suit. Claim construction proceeded before Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, and the case reportedly resolved via license/settlement, with docket activity into 2019.

Raytheon appealed from the PTAB IPR final decisions concerning the ’678 patent. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s obviousness holdings in a nonprecedential decision issued April 2, 2018.

Raytheon asserted the ’678 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) against Samsung entities over back-illuminated CMOS image sensors. The case was stayed pending co-pending IPRs, and after the patent claims were cancelled the parties’ joint motion to dismiss was granted on June 8, 2018.

Severed from the earlier Mirror Worlds action, this case asserted the '227 patent against Dell, HP, Lenovo, Samsung, Microsoft, and Best Buy. It was dismissed on November 9, 2015, with Microsoft reportedly settling for $4.65 million.

Mirror Worlds Technologies sued Apple and other defendants; after severance, Apple settled by paying $25 million for a fully paid-up, non-exclusive license to the '227 patent, announced July 8, 2016.

Rembrandt asserted U.S. 8,457,228 and U.S. 8,023,580 against Samsung entities and BlackBerry entities. A 2015 jury verdict found infringement and awarded $15.7M; the Federal Circuit affirmed claim construction and denial of JMOL but vacated and remanded on marking-based damages. The E.D. Tex. action was dismissed with prejudice in August 2019 after settlement.

Apple asserted US 7,663,607 against Samsung, but withdrew it in July 2012 before trial. The case was tried on other Apple patents, including the '381 bounce-back, '915 multi-touch/pinch-to-zoom, and '163 double-tap-to-zoom patents, and resulted in a jury verdict and subsequent appeals.

'828 was among the patents in suit and was expressly included in the court's claim-construction order (Dkt. 849, construing '711, '002, '381, '607, '828, '915, '891) and in Apple's Patent L.R. 4-5 submissions. It was not among the utility patents tried to the August 2012 jury verdict and produced no infringement verdict.

Digital Security Systems Corporation, LLC sued Samsung Electronics and numerous electronics manufacturers and retailers in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,052,780 based on Blu-ray Disc players. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on February 23, 2009.

This is a patent infringement lawsuit filed by One-E-Way against Samsung in the Western District of Texas. The case is currently in its early stages.

W&Wsens Devices Inc. sued Samsung for patent infringement, asserting patent 11621360 and other related patents. The court denied Samsung's motions to stay pending PTAB review and to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. Samsung was granted leave to amend its invalidity contentions.

Telcom Ventures LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The case is active in the Eastern District of Texas with a jury selection date set for June 22, 2026.

Cobblestone Wireless LLC sued Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of US Patent 7924802.

A jury initially found Samsung infringed US Patent 10736130 and another patent, awarding damages. Following a PTAB ruling that US Patent 10736130 was invalid, the district court wiped away the verdict for this patent. The PTAB's invalidity ruling for US Patent 10736130 was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on July 30, 2026.

Headwater sued Samsung for infringement of '055 and related patents. The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss; in September 2025 the court dismissed Headwater's infringement claims with prejudice and Samsung's counterclaims/defenses without prejudice, each side bearing its own fees and costs.

Smart Mobile Technologies LLC asserted U.S. Patent 9,614,943 (one of 12 asserted patents) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in W.D. Tex. The case was dismissed with prejudice on July 15, 2024 via a joint motion, with no damages or injunctive relief awarded.

FISI sued Samsung Electronics entities in E.D. Tex. asserting the '586 patent. Claim construction was held on 2018-01-31; later outcome not confirmed.

Section 337 investigation brought by Maxell against Samsung entities; the '971 patent is expressly recited in Maxell's Section 337 complaint. The institution date and current status were not independently confirmed in the narrative.

Maxell asserted seven patents, including US 11,223,757, against Samsung. The court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on the '757 and '590 patents pre-trial; after a jury verdict on other patents, the district court granted Samsung JMOL, and Maxell appealed and sought a stay pending related PTAB proceedings.

Smart Mobile sued Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in W.D. Tex., Waco Division (filed July 1–2, 2021), asserting many of the same patents as the Apple case, including U.S. 8,472,937. The court denied a stay pending IPR alongside the Apple case, and Samsung pursued § 1404(a) transfer to N.D. Cal.

Lead consolidated case for Uniloc's Wave 1 E.D. Tex. campaign. Member cases were ultimately dismissed with prejudice and the lead case was closed in February 2024.

Patent infringement action in E.D. Tex. brought by Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. asserting U.S. Patent 8,199,747; terminated per Stanford NPE Database.

Appeal from PTAB IPR2024-00534 concerning U.S. 9,138,862. The record indicates the appeal was resolved by dismissal pursuant to settlement, but the narrative did not independently verify the 26-1528 order.

Consolidated Federal Circuit appeal from PTAB IPR2020-00737 involving U.S. 9,436,354 and IPR2020-00738 involving U.S. 8,370,393. The court affirmed the PTAB, leaving the '354 claims cancelled.

Appeal from S.D.N.Y. No. 1:19-cv-04297-ER addressing whether the NDA's forum-selection clause barred Samsung from filing IPRs on Kannuu's patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,996,579. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court; panel and en banc rehearing were denied, and the mandate issued December 21, 2021.

FISI asserted the '766 patent against Samsung entities. The case settled per FISI's PTAB mandatory notice and produced a claim-construction opinion on the '936 family.

FISI asserted the '655 patent against Samsung Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas. Samsung was a co-petitioner with ZTE in IPR2018-00425 before settling and being dismissed; the related Samsung IPR on the '173 patent was terminated by joint motion in July 2018.