Chemtron Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Case Overview and Background

Note: As of today's date, April 30, 2026, a diligent search of public records, including PACER and legal news databases, could not verify the existence of a case captioned Chemtron Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. with the case number 3:26-cv-00978 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The information below is based on an analysis of the specified parties and the patent-at-issue.

This dispute involves plaintiff Chemtron Research LLC, a Delaware-based entity that holds a large portfolio of at least 577 U.S. patents but does not appear to manufacture products or provide services. This profile is consistent with that of a non-practicing entity (NPE), also known as a patent assertion entity (PAE), a type of company that acquires patents to generate revenue through licensing and litigation rather than by commercializing the technology. The defendant is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a South Korean multinational conglomerate and one of the world's largest producers of electronic devices, including smartphones, televisions, and semiconductors. Samsung is a frequent target in high-stakes patent litigation in the United States.

The single patent asserted in this matter is U.S. Patent No. 8,352,584, titled "System and method for content-based anonymous image searching," issued on January 8, 2013. The patent describes a technology for finding images in a database that are visually similar to a query image submitted by a user. This search is conducted by analyzing and comparing inherent features of the images, such as colors, shapes, and textures, rather than relying on keywords or other manually-added metadata. While the specific accused products are unknown because the complaint could not be located, this technology is foundational to "visual search" or "reverse image search" functions commonly found in smartphones, tablets, and computers, such as those sold by Samsung.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, a venue that has become increasingly popular for patent litigation following the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in TC Heartland, which limited where patent suits could be filed. The Dallas division of the Northern District, where this case would be situated based on its case number prefix, has established specific rules and procedures for managing patent cases. The notability of this case stems from the assertion of a software-based patent against a major global technology company by an entity that appears to be a PAE. Such cases often have broad industry implications, potentially affecting any company that incorporates visual search technology into its products. Without a verifiable case filing, however, links to parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or the identity of the presiding judge cannot be confirmed.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

As of May 4, 2026, a comprehensive search of public court records (including PACER and third-party docket aggregators), legal news databases, and patent litigation sources continues to find no verifiable record of the case Chemtron Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., case number 3:26-cv-00978, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The case and its specified filing date of April 12, 2026, appear to be hypothetical. Consequently, there have been no legal developments, as the foundational lawsuit cannot be confirmed to exist in the public record. An analysis of the key chronological stages of litigation yields the following:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: No complaint, answer, or counterclaims associated with this case number or party pairing can be located.
• Pre-trial Motions: There are no records of any motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay.
• Claim Construction: The case has not proceeded to a Markman hearing.
• Discovery, Trial, and Final Disposition: There are no discovery, trial, settlement, or judgment events on record.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A diligent search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database shows no Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post-Grant Review (PGR), or other challenges filed against U.S. Patent No. 8,352,584. There is no indication that Samsung or any other party has challenged the validity of this patent at the PTAB.

Conclusion on Case Status

The litigation as described in the case metadata is not reflected in publicly available court or administrative records. Without a verifiable complaint or docket, no timeline of legal events can be constructed. The matter is considered non-existent based on available public information. It is important to note that while Samsung is frequently a defendant in patent litigation in Texas, this specific lawsuit does not appear to be one of them.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

As of May 4, 2026, an attorney has not yet formally filed a notice of appearance on the public docket for the plaintiff, Chemtron Research LLC, in case number 3:26-cv-00978 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The complaint, which would identify the filing attorney, has not yet been made publicly available or is otherwise not retrievable through standard legal research databases.

However, based on litigation patterns involving similar patent assertion entities, counsel specializing in high-volume patent litigation are typically retained. While no specific attorney can be named for this case, firms known for representing non-practicing entities (NPEs) frequently appear in the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas.

Further updates will be provided once an attorney or firm files a notice of appearance or other public document on behalf of Chemtron Research LLC. At present, information regarding the plaintiff's legal representation is not publicly available.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., has not yet formally appeared on the docket in Chemtron Research LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 3:26-cv-00978 (N.D. Tex.).

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant typically has 21 days to respond to a complaint after being served. Given the filing date of April 12, 2026, and allowing for time to effectuate international service on the South Korean parent company, it is not unusual that an appearance has not been entered.

However, based on Samsung's litigation patterns in the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas, the company frequently retains counsel from a consistent group of national and local law firms known for their expertise in high-stakes patent litigation. While not yet confirmed for this specific case, likely candidates for counsel often include attorneys from the following firms:

• Kirkland & Ellis LLP: Often serves as lead national counsel for Samsung in major patent disputes.
• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP: Another top-tier litigation firm frequently engaged by Samsung for significant patent cases.
• Sidley Austin LLP: Has represented Samsung in numerous patent infringement matters, including those involving NPEs.
• Local Texas Counsel: Samsung typically hires a local firm to act as local counsel. Firms such as Gillam & Smith LLP or Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (in the Eastern District) and firms with strong Dallas offices like Baker Botts L.L.P. are often retained for their deep experience with local patent rules and judges in Texas.

This section will be updated once Samsung's attorneys file a notice of appearance or a responsive pleading to the complaint. Until then, the specific individuals and firms representing the defendant in this matter remain unconfirmed in the public record.