CardWare Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

CardWare Inc., a company founded in Austin in 2011, is the plaintiff in this patent infringement lawsuit. CardWare is characterized as a provider of security solutions for payment cards, offering services such as payment validation authentication for fraud prevention and tracking scammers. Given its business model, lack of external funding, and aggressive litigation against major technology companies, CardWare Inc. appears to operate as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE). The defendant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., is a South Korean technology conglomerate, a global leader in innovation that manufactures a vast array of products, including semiconductors, smartphones, TVs, and communication equipment. Samsung is a frequent target of patent infringement lawsuits, particularly from NPEs, and has a strategic focus on managing its extensive patent litigation exposure.

The core of the dispute revolves around alleged infringement of US Patent 11176538. While a precise one-line technical sketch for this specific patent is not directly available in search results, CardWare's patent portfolio, including related patents asserted in parallel litigation, generally pertains to systems for securely conducting in-store and online transactions using mobile devices. For example, a related patent (US 11328286) describes a multi-function electronic payment card and device system that emulates a standard credit card and generates a magnetic field in response to detection by a magnetic card reader, often involving limited-duration credit card numbers. Another related patent (US 10339520) involves "static device account numbers" with limited-use and limited-duration characteristics. Although not explicitly stated for this case, accused products in similar CardWare litigation against Google include electronic devices supporting mobile payment functionalities like Google Pay and Google Wallet. It is highly probable that the accused products from Samsung in this litigation are its mobile payment systems, such as Samsung Pay, and the associated devices like smartphones and smartwatches.

This litigation is actively proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas under District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent infringement cases, often favored by plaintiffs, including NPEs, due to its reputation for a faster time-to-trial and perceived plaintiff-friendly environment. The case is notable as it reflects a prevalent pattern of NPEs asserting patents against large operating companies like Samsung, which frequently faces such lawsuits. Furthermore, the litigation is linked to concurrent inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where Samsung is challenging the validity of CardWare's asserted patents. This dual-track approach to patent disputes (district court litigation and PTAB challenges) is a common strategy employed by major tech companies to defend against infringement claims.

The patent infringement litigation between CardWare Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., case number 2:22-cv-00141 in the Eastern District of Texas, has seen several key legal developments, including pre-trial motions and parallel PTAB proceedings, leading to a settlement.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • CardWare Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on May 11, 2022. The case involves US Patent 11,176,538, among others.
  • CardWare Inc. filed its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions on September 8, 2022.
  • Samsung served invalidity contentions on November 7, 2022.
  • Samsung filed a notice of compliance regarding invalidity contentions on November 22, 2022.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Motion to Transfer: Samsung filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, which was denied by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on April 8, 2023.
  • Motion to Stay Pending IPR: Samsung's motion to stay the case pending the resolution of related PTAB proceedings was denied on February 16, 2023. Judge Gilstrap, the presiding judge, has a "universal practice" of denying pre-institution stays.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • The district court issued one opinion on claim construction. The specifics of this Markman order for the '538 patent are not detailed in the search results but are referenced in the context of parallel PTAB proceedings. Samsung's IPR petition for related patent 10,339,520 (IPR2023-00210) noted a disagreement on the construction of "static device account number" in the parallel litigation, indicating that claim construction was a point of contention.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • Fact discovery was scheduled to end on February 24, 2026. Expert discovery was also open, leading up to dispositive briefing and trial preparation.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • IPR2023-00219: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed IPR2023-00219 challenging U.S. Patent 11,176,538, which is one of the patents at issue in the district court litigation. This IPR was later settled.
  • PGR2023-00013: Samsung also filed a Post-Grant Review (PGR) for U.S. Patent No. 11,328,286 (a related patent) on the same day as another PGR (PGR2023-00012). These challenged all claims of the '286 patent. The PTAB's institution decision for PGR2023-00013 occurred on August 11, 2023. This related PGR indicates a broader challenge by Samsung to CardWare's patent portfolio.
  • IPR2023-00196, IPR2023-00210, IPR2023-00211: Samsung filed several other IPRs against CardWare's patents, including U.S. Patent 10,810,579 (IPR2023-00196) and U.S. Patent 10,339,520 (IPR2023-00210 and IPR2023-00211). Institution was denied in IPR2023-00210, while the others settled. This denial was partly due to the PTAB's reliance on Patent Owner's "overly-narrow construction of 'static device account number'" which overlooked critical intrinsic record portions.
  • Subsequent IPRs: Apple and Google have also filed IPRs challenging U.S. Patent 11,176,538 and related patents. Apple filed IPR2025-01150 challenging U.S. Patent 11,176,538. Google LLC filed IPR2025-01344 challenging a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,328,286. These IPRs reference the CardWare v. Samsung litigation, including the denial of Samsung's motion to stay and the district court's claim construction.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case CardWare Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 2:22-cv-00141, has settled. The exact date of settlement is not specified, but an expert witness report dated May 2, 2025, notes that the case had concluded via settlement. Many of the parallel IPRs filed by Samsung against CardWare's patents (IPR2023-00196, IPR2023-00211, and IPR2023-00219 for patent 11,176,538) also settled, with only IPR2023-00210 having institution denied.

The following attorneys are identified as counsel of record for CardWare Inc. in CardWare Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 2:22-cv-00141 (E.D. Tex.):

• Johnny Ward

  • Role: Local Counsel / Lead Counsel (as a distinguished trial attorney, often serves as local counsel, but has also secured major courtroom victories as lead counsel).
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
  • Notable Experience: Mr. Ward has appeared as an attorney of record in over 500 patent infringement cases and tried close to 60 cases to a jury verdict. He has secured significant courtroom victories against companies such as Apple, Samsung, Verizon, and Microsoft. He was part of the legal team that won a $502.8 million judgment for VirnetX against Apple in a patent infringement case in 2020 and a $302.4 million verdict in a similar case in 2016. He has also been recognized as a Litigation Star in Benchmark Litigation for his intellectual property work.

• Jeffrey R. Bragalone

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, Texas.
  • Notable Experience: Mr. Bragalone's practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis on patent and other intellectual property matters. His experience covers various technologies, including semiconductors, liquid crystal displays, cellular communications, wireless networks, and memory technology. He represented Cisco Systems, Inc. in obtaining a worldwide injunction against Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and was part of the trial team for Ericsson in patent infringement litigation against Qualcomm.

• Ryan H. McBrayer

  • Role: Lead Counsel (represents leading technology companies in patent and technology-centric trade secret cases and has been lead counsel in over 30 jury trials).
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, Washington.
  • Notable Experience: Mr. McBrayer frequently appears in district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has extensive experience with wireless networks and successfully obtained a jury verdict of invalidity and non-infringement for T-Mobile in a patent litigation matter related to wireless data cards. He also secured a victory for McAfee in a multi-patent case, where the PTAB declared all challenged claims unpatentable.

• Thomas J. Fleming

  • Role: Lead Counsel (veteran trial lawyer with extensive experience in complex commercial and intellectual property litigation, including co-chairing numerous jury patent trials).
  • Firm: Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, New York, New York (previously Kirkland & Ellis LLP).
  • Notable Experience: Mr. Fleming has served as lead counsel in dozens of trials and handled a wide variety of complex matters, with experience in areas such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and chemical products. He has argued numerous appeals, including before the Federal Circuit.

Please note that while some searches returned other attorneys named "Christopher J. Ward" or "John G. Smith" with patent litigation experience, their profiles indicated different primary practice areas (e.g., estate planning, appellate law) or affiliations that do not align with representing CardWare Inc. in this specific patent case. The attorneys listed above have direct or strong circumstantial links to the plaintiff and relevant patent litigation.Plaintiff CardWare Inc. is represented by a team of experienced patent litigators. The identified counsel of record are:

• Johnny Ward

  • Role: Local Counsel / Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas.
  • Experience: Mr. Ward is a highly distinguished trial attorney in East Texas, having appeared as an attorney of record in over 500 patent infringement cases and tried nearly 60 cases to a jury verdict. He has secured major courtroom victories against prominent technology companies, including Apple, Samsung, Verizon, and Microsoft. Notably, he was part of legal teams that obtained a $502.8 million judgment and a $302.4 million verdict for VirnetX in patent infringement cases against Apple.

• Jeffrey R. Bragalone

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Bragalone Olejko Saad PC, Dallas, Texas.
  • Experience: Mr. Bragalone's practice emphasizes complex patent and intellectual property litigation, covering technologies such as semiconductors, wireless networks, cellular communications, and memory technology. His significant cases include obtaining a worldwide injunction for Cisco Systems against Huawei Technologies and participating in the first Markman hearing in the Eastern District of Texas in the Ericsson v. Qualcomm litigation.

• Ryan H. McBrayer

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, Washington.
  • Experience: Mr. McBrayer represents leading technology companies in patent and trade secret disputes, frequently appearing in district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has served as lead counsel in more than 30 jury trials and possesses extensive experience with wireless network technologies. He successfully obtained a jury verdict of invalidity and non-infringement for T-Mobile in a patent litigation case concerning wireless data cards.

• Thomas J. Fleming

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP, New York, New York. (He was previously with Kirkland & Ellis LLP.)
  • Experience: Mr. Fleming is a veteran trial lawyer with extensive experience in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation. He has co-chaired numerous jury patent trials and handled cases in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and chemical products. He has also argued multiple appeals, including before the Federal Circuit.

The defendant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., was represented by a team of attorneys from several law firms.

Here is the identified counsel of record for Samsung:

Lead Counsel:

• David Enzminger
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Highly regarded for his work on complex hardware and software patent infringement cases. Winston & Strawn is consistently ranked among the top national patent defense firms.
• George Lombardi
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, IL.
  • Note: A leading patent litigator particularly for cases involving telephone and computer technology.
• Krishnan Padmanabhan
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: Praised by clients for his "winning arguments" and technological expertise in district courts.
• Aimee Fagan
  • Firm: Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX.
  • Note: Sought after by clients in the energy, technology, and medical industries, among others, and is known for getting practical and efficient results. Sidley Austin has an "impressive patent litigation outfit with seasoned trial lawyers" and is recommended for high-value patent disputes in hi-tech, life sciences, and software sectors.

Local Counsel:

• Melissa Smith
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX.
  • Note: Gillam & Smith is a Marshall-based litigation boutique with significant expertise in IP disputes, including patent litigation, and has a track record of representing both plaintiffs and defendants in federal court patent infringement litigation throughout Texas. The firm is noted as being among the top three busiest law firms in the country for patent litigation defendants from 2021-2025.

Other Counsel (based on general Samsung litigation patterns in EDTX):

While not explicitly linked to CardWare v. Samsung, the following firms and attorneys frequently represent Samsung in Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, indicating they may have been involved in some capacity:

• DLA Piper: This firm has secured victories for Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas, including overturning a jury verdict in Maxell Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
• Sidley Austin LLP: With a substantial intellectual property litigation practice, Sidley Austin frequently represents major multinational corporations in industries like semiconductors and electronic systems.
• Winston & Strawn LLP: This firm is recognized as one of the country's most active and highly regarded patent litigation practices, representing many of the top global semiconductor companies.

It is important to note that the case has settled, and the specific roles of all counsel involved in the settlement are not detailed in public records.