CM HK Ltd v.

CM HK Ltd, identified in litigation as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., prominent global electronics manufacturers. The plaintiff, CM HK Ltd, is linked to China Mobile Hong Kong Company Limited (CMHK), a telecommunications operator based in Hong Kong specializing in mobile voice, data, broadband, and information and communications technology services. The core of the dispute revolves around US Patent 11698687, titled "Electronic device for use in motion detection and method for obtaining motion data," which covers technologies related to sensing and processing movement in electronic devices. While specific accused products are not explicitly detailed in publicly available summaries, given Samsung's business, the accused technology likely pertains to features found in their mobile devices, such as smartphones, tablets, or other consumer electronics incorporating advanced motion detection or positioning capabilities.

The litigation is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas, specifically before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a venue renowned for its experience and typically faster timelines in patent cases. The case, however, is currently stayed pending the outcome of a related declaratory judgment action (4:24-cv-06567) that Samsung filed against CM HK Ltd and Cywee Group Ltd. in the Northern District of California. This parallel litigation in a different district, initiated by Samsung, underscores a common defense strategy against patent assertions, often involving challenges to jurisdiction and attempts to shift venue.

This case is notable for several reasons, primarily reflecting a prevalent pattern of patent assertion by NPEs against large technology companies. The litigation involves not only the direct infringement claims but also related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where Samsung has filed IPR2025-01071 against US Patent 11698687. Furthermore, Samsung's "alter ego theory" and attempts at jurisdictional discovery in the California declaratory judgment action highlight the strategic complexities and multi-front battles characteristic of high-stakes patent disputes in the telecommunications and consumer electronics industries.

The patent infringement case of CM HK Ltd v. Samsung Electronics Co LTD et al (2:24-cv-00880) is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case concerns U.S. Patent 11,698,687 and also involves U.S. Patent 10,852,846.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2024-10-31: CM HK Limited filed its original complaint for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 11,698,687 and U.S. Patent 10,852,846. The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2025-01-28: CM HK Limited filed an amended complaint for patent infringement.
• 2025-01-07: CM HK served its infringement contentions.
• 2025-03-04: Samsung served its invalidity contentions.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2024-09-18: Prior to CM HK's Texas filing, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against CM HK, Ltd. and CyWee Group, Ltd. in the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:24-cv-06567).
• 2025-05-15: In the parallel California litigation, the court granted CM HK's motion to dismiss, finding Samsung failed to establish specific jurisdiction over CM HK, but allowed Samsung to seek jurisdictional discovery.
• 2025-06-10: Following the motion to dismiss in California, a joint stipulation and order to stay all deadlines in the scheduling order was entered in the California case.
• 2025-08-12: Samsung filed a motion to compel jurisdictional discovery in the California litigation.
• 2025-08-13: CM HK filed a motion for sanctions under Rule 11 against Samsung in the California litigation, alleging Samsung failed to properly construe a term and asserted insufficient alter ego allegations.
• 2025-08-20: The Texas court (2:24-cv-00880) stayed the case pending the outcome of the California litigation.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• While a Markman hearing was scheduled for 2026-02-19, the case was stayed before this date.
• 2025-03-28: The parties exchanged proposed terms for construction under Patent L.R. 4-1 in the California litigation.
• 2025-05-13: The parties filed their Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement in the California litigation.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• 2025-06: Samsung filed an IPR against U.S. Patent 11,698,687 (IPR2025-01071) and another IPR (IPR2024-01023) against U.S. Patent 10,852,846. CM HK, as Patent Owner, filed a discretionary denial brief in IPR2025-01071.

Present Posture:
The case in the Eastern District of Texas (2:24-cv-00880) is currently stayed pending the outcome of the parallel litigation in the Northern District of California (4:24-cv-06567). A Markman hearing was tentatively set for 2026-02-19 and jury selection for 2026-08-03 in the Texas case, but these dates are likely impacted by the stay.

Plaintiff's Counsel Identified in CM HK Ltd. Patent Infringement Case

CM HK Ltd., the plaintiff in the patent infringement suit CM HK Ltd v., Case No. 2:24-cv-00880, in the Eastern District of Texas, is represented by attorneys from Alston & Bird LLP. While direct PACER docket entries were not accessible through web search to confirm specific appearances in the district court case, these attorneys are listed as representing CM HK Limited (as "Patent Owner") in a related Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR2025-01071) concerning the same patent, 11,698,687, and explicitly referencing the district court case. Given the close relationship between the IPR and the district court litigation, it is a reasonable inference that the same legal team is handling both matters for CM HK Ltd.

The following attorneys from Alston & Bird LLP are identified as representing CM HK Limited:

• Christopher T.L. Douglas
  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from IPR document)
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC
  • Relevant Experience: Co-chair of Alston & Bird's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Practice and co-leader of the Patents Group, with extensive experience in patent litigation, post-grant proceedings, and strategic patent portfolio management across various technologies including telecommunications and computer-based technologies. He is recognized by IAM Patent 1000 and Patexia for his post-grant practice and intellectual property litigation.
• Madeline E. Byrd
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, New York, NY
  • Relevant Experience: Specializes in complex intellectual property disputes before U.S. District Courts and the PTAB, with experience in telecommunications, smartphones, semiconductors, biotechnology, and life sciences industries. She previously served as a judicial law clerk for the Hon. Todd M. Hughes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Miranda Sooter
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC
  • Relevant Experience: Focuses on patent preparation and prosecution, and has considerable experience representing clients in state, federal, and appellate courts, and before the International Trade Commission (ITC) in technologies such as computer software, telecommunications, and semiconductors. She also represents clients in post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.
• Casey Hickey, Ph.D.
  • Role: Patent Agent
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC
  • Relevant Experience: A registered patent agent with an extensive background in chemistry, she focuses on the preparation and prosecution of patent applications for tech clients in software and wireless telecommunication industries, as well as pharmaceutical and university clients.
• Brady Cox
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Relevant Experience: Assists clients with complex patent and trademark disputes across various technologies, including computer hardware and software, telecommunications, and semiconductors. He has experience in U.S. district courts (including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas), the International Trade Commission, and the PTAB. He was recognized by Patexia as a top-performing patent litigator.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in CM HK Ltd v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

In the active patent infringement suit CM HK Ltd v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00880, in the Eastern District of Texas, the following counsel represents defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.:

• Name: Sasha Vujcic
• Role: Patent Attorney
• Firm: Paul Hastings LLP
• Office Location: Specific office location for Sasha Vujcic at Paul Hastings LLP in relation to this case is not explicitly stated in the provided search results.
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Sasha Vujcic is noted as a patent attorney with Paul Hastings LLP.

While numerous firms frequently represent Samsung in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, such as DLA Piper and McKool Smith, Sasha Vujcic is the only attorney explicitly linked to Case No. 2:24-cv-00880 in the provided search results. The docket for this case indicates that Samsung, along with Samsung Electronics America, Inc., has filed documents such as "Local Patent Rule 3-3 Disclosures," confirming their appearance in the case. However, without direct access to the full docket entries for counsel appearances, it is not possible to list all counsel of record or their specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) beyond what has been identified.