CM HK Limited v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

CM HK Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of China Mobile Limited, is a prominent telecommunications operator based in Hong Kong, offering a wide array of communication services including voice, data, IDD, and international roaming through various network technologies like 4G LTE and 5G. In this patent infringement litigation, CM HK Limited (Plaintiff) has accused [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Defendants) of infringing U.S. Patent No. 10,852,846. While specific accused products or services are not detailed in the provided snippets, the context of Samsung being a major electronics manufacturer and CM HK being a telecom operator suggests the alleged infringement likely relates to Samsung's mobile devices or network-related technologies. The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,852,846, broadly relates to systems and methods for wireless communication, though a precise one-line technical sketch requires a direct review of the patent claims.

The case, 2:24-cv-00880, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and is assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a historically significant and currently resurgent venue for patent litigation, known for its rapid litigation timetables and perceived plaintiff-friendly environment, which can pressure defendants to settle. This district's resurgence as a top patent hotspot is attributed to judges with extensive experience in patent cases and a commitment to quick trials. The case is currently stayed as of August 20, 2025, pending the outcome of related litigation in the Northern District of California and a related IPR proceeding at the PTAB concerning the '846 patent. This IPR linkage and the parallel litigation in a different district underscore the multi-faceted legal battle over the asserted patent, highlighting a common strategy in patent disputes involving major technology companies.

The key legal developments and outcome for CM HK Limited v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00880, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, are summarized below in chronological order:

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

• 2024-09-18 – Related Litigation Filed in N.D. California: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. initiated a declaratory judgment action against CM HK, Ltd. in the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:24-cv-06567). This action asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,852,846 ("the '846 Patent") and 11,698,687 ("the '687 Patent"), among others.
• 2024-10-31 – Eastern District of Texas Case Filed: CM HK Limited filed a patent infringement complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas.
• 2024-11-01 – Plaintiff's Original Complaint: CM HK Limited filed its Original Complaint for Patent Infringement (Docket 2) in the Texas litigation, accusing Samsung of infringing the '687 Patent and the '846 Patent. Specifically, CM HK asserted infringement of claims 1, 3, 7, and 9 of the '846 Patent and claims 1-7, 12, 14, and 25 of the '687 Patent. (Note: While the prompt indicates only Patent 10,852,846 is at issue, the initial complaint in the Texas litigation asserted both patents according to PTAB filings.) The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2025-01-07 – Infringement Contentions Served: CM HK Limited served its infringement contentions.
• 2025-01-28 – Plaintiff's Amended Complaint: CM HK Limited filed an Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (Docket 17).
• 2025-03-04 – Invalidity Contentions Served: Samsung served its invalidity contentions.
• 2025-03-28 – Claim Construction Term Exchange: The parties exchanged proposed terms for claim construction under Patent Local Rule 4-1.
• 2025-05-13 – Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement Filed (N.D. Cal.): In the related Northern District of California case, the parties filed their Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (N.D. Cal. Docket 72).
• 2025-05-15 – Motion to Dismiss Granted in N.D. California: The N.D. California court granted CM HK's motion to dismiss, finding that Samsung failed to establish specific jurisdiction over CM HK. However, the court allowed Samsung to seek jurisdictional discovery.
• 22025-06-XX – IPR Filings: Samsung initiated two Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB):
  • IPR2025-01023 was filed against the '846 Patent.
  • IPR2025-01071 was filed against the '687 Patent.
• 2025-06-10 – Deadlines Vacated in N.D. California: At the parties' request, the N.D. California court vacated all deadlines from its Scheduling Order following the conditional dismissal.
• 2025-08-20 – Case Stayed in E.D. Texas: The Eastern District of Texas court issued an order (Docket 55) staying the case pending the outcome of the related litigation in the Northern District of California and the related IPR proceedings at the PTAB.
• Future (Likely Vacated) Markman Hearing: Before the stay, a Markman Hearing had been scheduled for the E.D. Texas case for 2026-02-19 before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Given the August 20, 2025 stay, this hearing was likely vacated.
• Current Posture: The case remains stayed in the Eastern District of Texas, awaiting the resolution of the parallel proceedings.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff CM HK Limited Identified in Eastern District of Texas Patent Case

In the patent infringement case of CM HK Limited v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:24-cv-00880) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the following attorneys are listed as counsel of record for the plaintiff, CM HK Limited:

• Michael Wayne Shore

  • Role: Lead Counsel (in conjunction with other listed attorneys)
  • Firm: The Shore Firm LLP
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas
  • Notable Experience: Michael Shore is a recognized patent litigator, particularly active in the Eastern District of Texas, known for representing plaintiffs in complex intellectual property disputes. His firm often serves in a lead counsel capacity in patent infringement cases.

• Zachary Della Porta

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: The Shore Firm LLP
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas
  • Notable Experience: Zachary Della Porta works on intellectual property litigation, supporting plaintiffs in patent enforcement actions, often alongside Michael Shore.

• Chijioke E. Offor

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Offor Evans PLLC
  • Office Location: Houston, Texas (based on general firm information, specific office for this case appearance not definitively stated, but consistent with local counsel for EDTX)
  • Notable Experience: Chijioke E. Offor is involved in intellectual property litigation, and his firm frequently acts as counsel in patent cases in Texas federal courts.

• Christopher Liimatainen Evans

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Offor Evans PLLC
  • Office Location: Houston, Texas (based on general firm information, specific office for this case appearance not definitively stated, but consistent with local counsel for EDTX)
  • Notable Experience: Christopher Liimatainen Evans practices in intellectual property law, including patent litigation.

The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, often involving a combination of lead counsel from outside the district and local counsel familiar with the court's specific rules and procedures. The case was filed on October 31, 2024, and was subsequently stayed on August 20, 2025, pending outcomes in related litigation and an IPR proceeding.

In the patent infringement case CM HK Limited v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., case number 2:24-cv-00880 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the following counsel are representing the defendants:

Local Counsel:

• Melissa R. Smith (Partner)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall, Texas)
  • Experience: Melissa Smith is an experienced trial lawyer in the Eastern District of Texas, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in patent cases. She has served as local counsel for visiting lawyers in over three thousand patent cases and has a track record of obtaining non-infringement and invalidity verdicts. She is recognized among the top lawyers in her field, named a Texas Superlawyer every year since 2008 and a Top 50 Texas Female Lawyer since 2017. Her firm, Gillam & Smith, is noted for its patent litigation expertise and has been recognized as one of the busiest law firms for patent litigation defendants.
• Carl R. Roth (Lead Litigation Counsel/Founder)
  • Firm: The Roth Law Firm (Marshall, Texas)
  • Experience: Carl R. Roth has over 44 years of trial experience in Federal and State Courts of Texas, representing corporations in complex litigation, antitrust, and patent matters. He has tried over 300 cases to verdict and is known for his extensive experience in intellectual property matters in the Eastern District of Texas, including representing Texas Instruments in more than two dozen patent infringement cases. His work in the Marshall Division of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas contributed to the growth of its intellectual property docket.

While not explicitly listed for this specific case, Kirkland & Ellis LLP has a significant intellectual property litigation practice with a strong presence in the Eastern District of Texas and has represented Samsung in other patent infringement cases. Similarly, DLA Piper has also secured victories for Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas in other patent cases. It is common for large corporations like Samsung to utilize a combination of national and local counsel in patent litigation.