Cobblestone Wireless LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.

Cobblestone Wireless LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) and an entity of Bedrock IP Co., Ltd., has initiated patent infringement litigation against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a global technology conglomerate known for its consumer electronics. The lawsuit, filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, centers on US Patent 7924802, which broadly describes wireless communication systems and methods for simultaneously transmitting information across different frequency ranges using the same wireless transmitter. While specific accused products for patent 7924802 within this particular lawsuit were not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, Cobblestone Wireless has generally asserted its patents against a range of wireless carriers and technology companies, often targeting mobile devices and related communication technologies.

The case is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its plaintiff-friendly procedural rules and accelerated trial schedules, though the landscape has shifted somewhat following the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision. Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne has been involved in setting certain scheduling deadlines. This litigation is notable not only for involving a prominent NPE asserting wireless technology patents against a major implementer like Samsung but also due to significant parallel challenges to the asserted patent. US Patent 7924802 has been subjected to multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and an ex parte reexamination, indicating vigorous efforts by defendants and third parties to challenge its validity. This pattern of simultaneous district court litigation and PTAB challenges is a common characteristic of modern patent disputes involving NPEs and large technology companies.

The patent infringement case of Cobblestone Wireless LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:23-cv-00285) involved U.S. Patent 7924802.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Cobblestone Wireless LLC filed a complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on June 16, 2023, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 7924802.
• The lawsuit is identified as a patent infringement case initiated by a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE).

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• The docket control order from October 17, 2023, set deadlines for various pre-trial motions. Dispositive motions, including motions to strike expert testimony (Daubert motions), were due by January 27, 2025.
• Responses to dispositive motions were due by February 10, 2025.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A claim construction hearing (Markman hearing) was scheduled for November 13, 2024, in Marshall, Texas, before Judge Roy Payne.
• The court ordered the parties to submit a joint notice regarding mediation within fourteen days of the issuance of the court's claim construction order.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• Deadlines were set for discovery related to claim construction (September 18, 2024), fact discovery and motions to compel (November 22, 2024), expert witness disclosures (December 9, 2024), and rebuttal expert disclosures (January 7, 2025).
• Expert discovery was to be completed by January 21, 2025.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR2024-00606 (Samsung IPR): On February 26, 2024, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed IPR2024-00606 challenging claims 1–4, 6–10, 13, 14, 17, and 21–25 of the '802 patent.
  • On September 13, 2024, the PTAB granted institution in the Samsung IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim of the '802 patent was unpatentable.
  • On November 1, 2024, the parties in the Samsung IPR filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding due to settlement, which the PTAB granted on January 2, 2025.
• IPR2024-01336: On August 28, 2024, Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. filed IPR2024-01336, challenging the same claims of the '802 patent using identical prior art, arguments, and evidence as the Samsung IPR.
  • Qualcomm stated it filed the petition because Cobblestone sued at least one of its customers for infringing the '802 Patent, also identifying Cisco Systems, Inc. as a real party in interest due to a pending litigation involving the '802 patent.
  • On March 7, 2025, the PTAB instituted an inter partes review on all grounds set forth in Qualcomm's petition, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for at least one challenged claim.
• Other IPRs: The '802 patent was also involved in IPR2024-00318 (related to an earlier filing by Cobblestone Wireless LLC, Ex. 20101). There was also an IPR2024-00315 filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. concerning Patent 9,094,888 (not the '802 patent in this case, but potentially a related case by Cobblestone against Samsung).

6. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• A jury trial was scheduled to begin with jury selection on May 5, 2025.

7. Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• The case Cobblestone Wireless LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd., case number 2:23-cv-00285, is listed as "Closed" as of June 16, 2023, by Unified Patents, which might indicate an early resolution or dismissal not detailed in other search results for this specific patent. However, the docket control order from October 17, 2023, clearly sets out a schedule extending into 2025, suggesting the case was active well beyond June 2023. The IPR filings and their settlement in early 2025 (Samsung IPR) further confirm ongoing activity.

Note on "Closed" status: The "Closed" status in some databases, particularly without further detail on the disposition, can sometimes refer to the initial administrative closing of a newly filed case before active litigation milestones are properly logged, or it could indicate a dismissal, but the specific details for this case regarding its final outcome (settlement, dismissal, or judgment in the district court) for patent 7924802 are not explicitly clear from the provided search results. The settlement of IPR2024-00606 in January 2025 suggests a resolution of the dispute between Cobblestone and Samsung, which likely led to the termination of the district court case, though the specific docket entry for dismissal in the district court is not found in the search results.

It's important to distinguish this case from Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:23-cv-00587), which also involved Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas, had a jury verdict of $445 million against Samsung in October 2025, and a permanent injunction denial in May 2026. While the names are similar and both involve Samsung in EDTX, they are distinct cases with different plaintiffs and patents.The patent infringement litigation Cobblestone Wireless LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:23-cv-00285) concerns U.S. Patent 7924802.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Cobblestone Wireless LLC filed a complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on June 16, 2023, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 7924802. The plaintiff is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE).

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • A Docket Control Order issued on October 17, 2023, established key deadlines for pre-trial activities.
  • Motions to strike expert testimony (including Daubert Motions) and other dispositive motions were due by January 27, 2025.
  • Responses to these dispositive motions were due by February 10, 2025.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • A Claim Construction Hearing (Markman hearing) was scheduled for November 13, 2024, in Marshall, Texas, before Judge Roy Payne.
  • The court ordered the parties to file a Joint Notice indicating whether the case should be referred for mediation within fourteen days of the issuance of the court's claim construction order.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • Discovery related to claim construction was to be completed by September 18, 2024.
  • Fact discovery and motions to compel discovery were due by November 22, 2024.
  • Disclosures for expert witnesses from the party with the burden of proof were due by December 9, 2024.
  • Disclosures for rebuttal expert witnesses were due by January 7, 2025.
  • Expert discovery was to be completed by January 21, 2025.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

  • IPR2024-00606 (Samsung IPR): On February 26, 2024, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2024-00606) challenging claims 1–4, 6–10, 13, 14, 17, and 21–25 of the '802 patent.
    • On September 13, 2024, the PTAB granted institution of the Samsung IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim of the '802 patent was unpatentable.
    • On November 1, 2024, the parties in the Samsung IPR filed a joint motion to terminate the proceeding due to settlement, which the PTAB granted on January 2, 2025.
  • IPR2024-01336 (Qualcomm IPR): On August 28, 2024, Qualcomm Incorporated and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. filed IPR2024-01336, challenging the same claims of the '802 patent with identical prior art and arguments as the Samsung IPR. Qualcomm stated that it filed this petition because Cobblestone had sued at least one of Qualcomm's customers for infringing the '802 Patent, specifically identifying Cisco Systems, Inc. as a real party in interest in a pending litigation involving the '802 patent.
    • On March 7, 2025, the PTAB instituted an inter partes review on all grounds presented in Qualcomm's petition, determining that there was a reasonable likelihood that Qualcomm would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one challenged claim.

• Trial Events & Outcome:

  • Jury selection for the district court case was scheduled for May 5, 2025.
  • While the case schedule extended into 2025, records from Unified Patents indicate that Cobblestone Wireless LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd., case number 2:23-cv-00285, is "Closed" as of June 16, 2023. This "Closed" status, despite the later docket activity for claim construction and IPRs, suggests an early resolution or dismissal in the district court action, likely resulting from the settlement that also terminated the Samsung IPR in January 2025. Specific details of the final disposition in the district court, such as a formal dismissal order or judgment document, are not available in the provided search results.

Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless LLC is represented by counsel from Russ August & Kabat and Ward Smith & Hill, PLLC in Cobblestone Wireless LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP) in the Eastern District of Texas.

The counsel of record for Cobblestone Wireless LLC are:

• Reza Mirzaie (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Mr. Mirzaie is a partner and co-chair of the intellectual property department at Russ August & Kabat, specializing in patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret litigation across various technologies. He has represented Cobblestone Wireless in other patent infringement cases, including against Verizon and Apple.

• Marc A. Fenster (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Mr. Fenster is a founding partner of Russ August & Kabat and head of the intellectual property practice. He is recognized for his extensive experience in high-stakes patent litigation across a broad range of technologies.

• Neil A. Rubin (Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Mr. Rubin is a partner at Russ August & Kabat with experience in patent, trademark, and copyright litigation. He has represented Cobblestone Wireless in other patent infringement suits.

• Christian W. Conkle (Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Mr. Conkle is a partner at Russ August & Kabat focusing on intellectual property litigation. He has appeared on behalf of Cobblestone Wireless in other cases.

• Jonathan Ma (Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience: Mr. Ma is an attorney at Russ August & Kabat involved in intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement. He has represented Cobblestone Wireless in other matters.

• Qi (Peter) Tong (Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience: Mr. Tong is an attorney at Russ August & Kabat and is licensed in Texas, indicating a local presence for the firm in Eastern District of Texas cases. He practices intellectual property litigation.

• Andrea Fair (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Ward Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, TX.
  • Experience: Ms. Fair is a partner at Ward Smith & Hill, PLLC, a Texas-based firm often serving as local counsel in Eastern District of Texas patent cases. She has represented plaintiffs in patent infringement litigation and was also listed as counsel for Cobblestone Wireless in their case against Verizon.

The defendant, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., is represented by a combination of national lead counsel and local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.

Lead Counsel:

• Sean S. Pak
  • Role: Co-Chair of the firm's National Intellectual Property Litigation Practice, lead counsel (likely overall lead counsel given his prominent role in other Samsung EDTX cases).
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP – San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience Note: Sean Pak has extensive experience litigating patents, trade secrets, and other intellectual property. He served as lead counsel for Samsung Electronics in the Evolved Wireless v. Samsung trial in Marshall, Texas, where he obtained a complete defense verdict.
• James ("Jim") Glass
  • Role: Counsel (identified as Samsung's IPR counsel and likely involved in district court strategy).
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP – Likely offices in California or New York, given the firm's major IP presence.
  • Experience Note: Jim Glass is part of the Quinn Emanuel team consistently representing Samsung in significant patent litigation and related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.
• Quincy Lu
  • Role: Counsel (identified as Samsung's IPR counsel and likely involved in district court strategy).
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP – Likely offices in California or New York.
  • Experience Note: Quincy Lu is part of the Quinn Emanuel team representing Samsung in patent disputes and IPRs.
• Jason Williams
  • Role: Counsel (identified as Samsung's IPR counsel and likely involved in district court strategy).
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP – Likely offices in California or New York.
  • Experience Note: Jason Williams is part of the Quinn Emanuel team representing Samsung in patent disputes and IPRs.

Local Counsel:

• Melissa R. Smith
  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP – Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Melissa R. Smith is frequently listed as local counsel for Samsung and other defendants in patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Harry Lee Gillam, Jr.
  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP – Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Harry Lee Gillam, Jr. is a prominent East Texas attorney, often serving as local counsel in complex patent litigation.

The involvement of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP is strongly indicated by the plaintiff's filing acknowledging service to "Samsung's IPR counsel" at Quinn Emanuel email addresses. Quinn Emanuel is well-known for its aggressive patent litigation defense, having secured complete defense verdicts for Samsung in other Eastern District of Texas cases. Gillam & Smith, LLP routinely serves as local counsel for major technology companies, including Samsung, in the Eastern District of Texas, as evidenced by their appearances in other Samsung patent cases in the same court.