Litigation

Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

open/pending

2:26-cv-00760

Filed
2026-08-26

Patents at issue (1)

10963070

Summary

Patent infringement action filed by Fingertip Mouse Corporation against [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting U.S. Patent 10,963,070. The complaint's exhibits include a claim chart for 10,963,070, and the case is listed as open/pending. The reported filing date of 2026-08-26 is subject to a date discrepancy noted in the source.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Case Overview & Background

Parties and their roles. Plaintiff Fingertip Mouse Corporation, doing business as FTM Computer Products, is the assignee of a family of "Fingertip Mouse and Base" patents invented by Michael P. Bailen (Mason, WI) and originally assigned to FTM Computer Products of Duluth, MN (see assignment recorded at Reel/Frame 034680/0177 on Google Patents; Unified Patents lists FTM Computer Products as parent company of the family). The patent-tracking database Ex Parte classifies the patent owner as an "Operating Company," consistent with FTM's apparent status as a small, inventor-founded concern that has marketed a fingertip-mounted computer mouse product — though this suit (small entity asserting a two-decade-old patent family against a multinational) also carries hallmarks of a monetization/assertion play. Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is the U.S. arm of Samsung Electronics, one of the world's largest makers of smartphones, tablets, and wearables.

Patents and accused technology. Although the case metadata lists only U.S. Patent 10,963,070, the complaint (ECF No. 1, filed 08/26/2026) asserts three patents from the same family, each with a claim chart (Exhibits A–F): US 9,092,075 (granted 7/28/2015), US 9,261,983 (granted 2/16/2016), and US 10,963,070 (granted 3/30/2021, from application 15/016,567). Technically, the patents cover a finger-worn tracking device that generates movement information to control a cursor on a graphical user interface — the '983 patent's independent claim recites a finger-worn wireless housing whose inner space contains all electronics, wireless communication components, an on-housing display, and an accelerometer-based motion tracker — combined with a base device that receives the tracking device and translates movement across an adjacent surface like a conventional mouse (the '070/'075 claims). The priority chain runs back to Provisional Application 60/625,254 (Nov. 5, 2004). The specific Samsung products accused are identified in the complaint's claim charts (Exhibits D–F), but the publicly available docket excerpts do not name them; given the asserted finger-mouse/pointing-device claims and Samsung's device lineup, the allegations likely target cursor/pointer-control functionality on Samsung Galaxy devices (e.g., virtual mouse, S Pen pointer, or DeX-style input features), though this is not confirmed from the retrieved sources and should be verified against the complaint itself.

Procedural posture and venue. The case is pending as Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00760, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Nature of Suit 830 – Patent; filing fee $405, receipt ATXEDC-11759790). As of the search date the docket shows only the complaint, the AO 120 patent form (ECF 2), and plaintiff's Rule 7.1 disclosure (ECF 3), filed by plaintiff's counsel Cortney Alexander; Ex Parte lists the judge assignment as "Pending." The venue matters because the Marshall Division is the historical epicenter of patent litigation — a "rocket docket" with fast trial settings and historically plaintiff-friendly juries — and Samsung's substantial sales and retail presence in the Eastern District make it a recurrent, statutorily proper defendant there post-TC Heartland.

Why the case is notable. This is a late-stage assertion of a 2004-priority patent family against one of the world's largest consumer-electronics companies, filed in the most patent-plaintiff-friendly forum in the country. The asserted family has been through multiple continuations (8,648,805; 9,092,075; 9,261,983; 10,963,070, plus WO2008148043 and Canadian counterpart CA2688320A1), and the '983 patent has already expired (listed expiration Nov. 2, 2025 per Unified Patents), putting pressure on the surviving '070 patent as the primary assertion vehicle. At this very early stage — two days post-filing, no judge assigned, no Samsung appearance or answer yet — the case has not yet produced any substantive rulings, IPR petitions, or motions; those are expected to follow quickly given E.D. Tex. practice, with Samsung likely to answer, move to transfer/dismiss, or seek IPR review of the family. Sourcing caveat: the accused-product identification and any attorney/party characterization beyond the docket excerpts above are inferences; the complaint text and claim charts (ECF 1, Exhs. D–F) are the authoritative source and were not fully retrievable in this search.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Fingertip Mouse Corp. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. — Key Legal Developments & Current Posture

Case: 2:26-cv-00760 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) | Filed: 2026-08-26 | Status: Open/Pending (as of 2026-08-28)

Important threshold observation: As of today (2026-08-28), this case is two days old. It is in its absolute infancy. No answer, counterclaims, motions, claim construction, discovery, trial, or disposition exist yet — because none are due or could have occurred. What follows is the complete record to date, plus a material correction to the case metadata and a clear statement of what is (and is not) yet in the record.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2026-08-26)

Complaint filed — Docket No. 1 (2026-08-26):

⚠️ Material correction to case metadata: The case summary lists only U.S. Patent 10,963,070 as at issue. The actual complaint docket reflects three asserted patents, each with its own claim chart exhibit:

  • Exhibit A – U.S. Patent 9,092,075
  • Exhibit B – U.S. Patent 9,261,983
  • Exhibit C – U.S. Patent 10,963,070
  • Exhibits D, E, F – Claim charts for the '075, '983, and '070 patents respectively, plus Civil Cover Sheet

All three are from the same "Fingertip Mouse and Base" family (the '070 patent, "Fingertip mouse and base," issued 2021-03-30; related family members include 8,648,805; 9,092,075; 9,261,983). (https://patents.justia.com/patent/10963070)

AO 120 Notice — Docket No. 2 (2026-08-26): Notice of Filing of Patent/Trademark Form (AO 120) filed; emailed to the Director of the USPTO. (PACER Monitor, supra)

Corporate Disclosure Statement — Docket No. 3 (2026-08-26): F.R.C.P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement filed by Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products (Alexander, Cortney). (PACER Monitor, supra)

Judge assignment: Pending at last check (Ex Parte lists "Pending Judge Assignment"). (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00760/fingertip-mouse-corp-v-samsung-electronics-america-inc)

Date-discrepancy note: The case metadata flags a date discrepancy in the source. PACER Monitor and Ex Parte both independently show the filing as 08/26/2026, so the operative filing date appears settled at 2026-08-26; the discrepancy likely relates to the two-digit-year formatting ("08/26/26") in the docket feeds.

Answer / counterclaims: None filed — not yet due. Samsung's response deadline (21 days after service, or 60 days if a waiver was requested) will not run until Samsung is served or waives service; the docket shows no summons return or waiver executed as of 2026-08-28.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

None. No motion to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or summary judgment has been filed. Any such motion would be premature on day two.

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

Not reached. No scheduling order, no Markman briefing, no claim construction hearing. E.D. Tex. Marshall Division cases typically set Markman several months to a year out; nothing is scheduled publicly yet.

4. Discovery

None. No discovery requests, ESI protocols, protective order, or depositions. Discovery cannot commence until the Rule 26(f) conference and scheduling order, neither of which has occurred.

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

None. No trial date set; no verdict; no JMOL, new-trial, or fee motions. E.D. Tex. patent cases normally set trial 18–30 months out from filing; this case has no trial schedule at all yet.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, Appeal — Present Posture

Present posture: Case is open and pending in the earliest pre-answer stage. The only filings are the complaint (No. 1), AO 120 notice (No. 2), and plaintiff's Rule 7.1 disclosure (No. 3). No defendant appearance, no Rule 12 motion, no answer, no disposition of any kind. No appeal exists or could exist.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

None identified. Web searches for inter partes review or post-grant review of U.S. Patent 10,963,070 returned no PTAB proceeding on that patent (results were unrelated patents with the same last three digits, e.g., 8,317,070 and 10,561,170). No IPR/PGR was found on the companion patents 9,092,075 or 9,261,983 either.

Context worth monitoring: Samsung has a documented pattern in stylus/input-device cases of filing PTAB IPRs defensively (e.g., its successful IPR campaign against Power2B on S-Pen patents, affirmed at the Federal Circuit in 2025). Given FTM's asserted "Fingertip Mouse and Base" patents and Samsung's stylus/input hardware, an IPR petition is a realistic near-term development, but as of 2026-08-28 no such petition exists in the public record. Any IPR filed by Samsung would need to come within one year of service of the complaint (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)), so the window runs from roughly late August 2026 to late August 2027.

Bottom Line

This litigation is two days old. The record consists of exactly three docket entries (complaint with three patents and claim charts; AO 120; Rule 7.1 statement). There is no answer, no motions, no Markman, no discovery, no trial, no PTAB proceeding, and no disposition. The only "development" of note beyond the filing itself is the metadata correction: FTM is asserting three family patents (9,092,075; 9,261,983; 10,963,070) against Samsung, not just 10,963,070. The case is pending judge assignment in Marshall, and the next expected events are service/summons or waiver, Samsung's appearance, and an answer due ~21 days thereafter — none of which have yet occurred.

Sources: PACER Monitor case docket (https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/66471915/...); Ex Parte E.D. Tex. case page (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:26-cv-00760/...); Justia patent record for 10,963,070 (https://patents.justia.com/patent/10963070). Note: counsel for Samsung and precise service status are not yet in any public source I could verify.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Press Coverage Assessment

No published news or analysis coverage of this case was found. Systematic searches across multiple angles — the case caption ("Fingertip Mouse Corporation v. Samsung Electronics America"), the parties ("FTM Computer Products" + Samsung), the asserted patent numbers ("10,963,070," "9,092,075," "9,261,983"), and descriptive terms ("fingertip mouse" patent Samsung) — returned only docket aggregator pages, specifically PACER Monitor and Ex Parte. Neither is press coverage; both simply restate the complaint docket (three asserted patents — '075, '983, '070 — with claim charts, filed 2026-08-26, status "Open," judge assignment pending).

No article from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, Ars Technica, The Verge, EFF, JD Supra, or any trade outlet discussing this specific case surfaced in any search. The only Samsung-adjacent patent stories that appeared were unrelated: an E.D. Tex. jury verdict in a separate case (Samsung ordered to pay $78.5M to Anonymous Media Research over ACR patents, per ScaleJuris), general Samsung patent-portfolio reporting (e.g., Daum/KBS-style coverage of Samsung surpassing 100,000 U.S. patents), and Korean coverage of Samsung's broader IP litigation exposure (e.g., Newstomato on Swatch, Oura, and ZTE disputes) — none of which mention Fingertip Mouse or the '070 family.

Bottom line: As of 2026-08-28, this case has zero press coverage — consistent with its being two days old, with no judge assigned, no defendant appearance, and no substantive docket activity beyond the complaint, AO 120 notice, and Rule 7.1 statement. There is therefore no reported damages figure, settlement discussion, market-impact analysis, or industry reaction to summarize, and no outlet accounts exist to compare against the court record. If and when Samsung answers, files a Rule 12 motion, or petitions for IPR, coverage in patent-focused outlets (IPWatchdog, Law360, RPX, docket-navigator blogs) would be the first likely place it appears; none exists today.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Fingertip Mouse Corp. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (2:26-cv-00760, E.D. Tex.)

Based on the public docket as of 2026-08-28, the only attorney appearing for plaintiff Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products is Cortney Alexander. He is the filer identified on all three docket entries: the Complaint (ECF No. 1), the AO 120 patent notice (ECF No. 2), and the Rule 7.1 corporate disclosure statement (ECF No. 3) — each timestamped 08/26/2026 and bearing the "(Alexander, Cortney)" filer designation (PACER Monitor case docket; Ex Parte case page).

Confirmed counsel of record

Cortney Alexander — Lead/filing counsel

  • Firm: Kent & Risley LLC, 5755 N Point Pkwy, Ste 57, Alpharetta, GA 30022 (Atlanta metro) — direct (404) 855-3867, cortneyalexander@kentrisley.com (Cornell LII/Lawyers.com profile; Docket Alarm exhibit showing firm address in PTAB/IPR2024-01048 Apple v. S.M.R. Innovations).
  • Experience: ~20 years in IP litigation; self-reported lead counsel in 120+ patent-infringement suits, plus IPR practice before the PTAB and Federal Circuit appeals. Former partner at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner (joined 2005); began at Frost Brown Todd (Louisville). J.D., LSU; B.S. mechanical engineering (cum laude), Rose-Hulman. Admitted in Georgia, Kentucky, and Louisiana, with the Eastern District of Texas also listed in his public profile (localbusinesslawyers.com). Notable past cases: lead counsel in several E.D. Tex. assertions against Samsung specifically — S.M.R. Innovations & Y.M.R. Tech v. Samsung, No. 4:20-cv-641 (E.D. Tex., multimedia routing patents); Vulpecula v. Samsung & LG, Nos. 4:20-cv-189/191; Grus Tech v. Samsung & LG, Nos. 4:20-cv-190/192 — plus 21st Century Garage v. Hyundai/Mazda (E.D. Tex.), Sunflower Licensing v. Avnet (W.D. Tex.), and POWERbahn (N.D. Ga.). He also defended patent owners in IPRs including Google v. Zipit Wireless, IPR2019-01567/-01568.
  • Role in this case: Lead/filing counsel. All three initial filings were made under his ECF credentials. No pro hac vice motion has been filed — consistent with his E.D. Tex. admission — though whether he will serve as the E.D. Tex. "local" attorney or partner with Texas-based counsel is not yet discernible from the docket.

Likely supporting attorneys — NOT yet confirmed as counsel of record here

The complaint's signature block may name additional Kent & Risley attorneys, but the full complaint text and its signature page were not retrievable in my searches, and no notices of appearance from any other attorney appear on the docket (which, at two days old, contains only ECF 1–3). Two Kent & Risley partners with existing E.D. Tex. bar admission are plausible additions to the team based on the firm's pattern in similar E.D. Tex. filings, but I am flagging them as unconfirmed for this specific case:

  • Daniel A. Kent — founding partner, Kent & Risley (Alpharetta); admitted to E.D. Tex.; 30+ years of IP trial experience (Fish & Richardson Atlanta founding partner, Jones Day, Alston & Bird); Chambers-listed.
  • Olivia E. Marbutt — partner, Kent & Risley; admitted to E.D. Tex.; decade-plus patent litigation experience (formerly Jones Day).
  • Stephen R. Risley — founding partner and head of the firm's litigation group; his Martindale profile emphasizes E.D. Tex. "rocket docket" experience, though his listed admissions do not clearly include E.D. Tex.

Caveats

  • No defendant-side or local Texas counsel identified — none has appeared; Samsung has not yet been served (no summons return or waiver on the docket), so its counsel is unknown.
  • No in-house counsel for FTM has been identified in any public source; FTM is a small operating company and no corporate counsel appears in the record.
  • Nothing is sealed in this case; the limitation is simply that the case is two days old and the docket reflects only the three initial filings by Alexander.

Bottom line: Cortney Alexander (Kent & Risley LLC, Alpharetta, GA) is the sole attorney of record for plaintiff as of 2026-08-28, serving as lead/filing counsel with substantial prior experience suing Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas. Additional firm attorneys may be added to the signature block of the complaint, but that cannot be confirmed from publicly available sources, and no other counsel has filed an appearance.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

The docket aggregators confirm only plaintiff-side filings so far. Let me verify whether any defendant appearance, summons, or waiver has been recorded, and check for any newer docket entries.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Finding

No counsel of record has appeared for Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in this case as of 2026-08-28. There are no defense attorneys to identify because none have entered the case.

Basis for this finding

The public docket for Fingertip Mouse Corporation dba FTM Computer Products v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00760 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.), contains exactly three docket entries, all plaintiff-side, all filed 08/26/2026 by plaintiff's counsel Cortney Alexander (PACER Monitor case 66471915; Ex Parte E.D. Tex. case page):

  1. ECF No. 1 – Complaint (6 pages, with Exhibits A–F: three patents and claim charts) and Civil Cover Sheet
  2. ECF No. 2 – AO 120 Patent/Trademark Form notice
  3. ECF No. 3 – Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement

There is no notice of appearance, no motion for admission pro hac vice, no designation of local counsel, no summons issuance/return, no waiver of service, no answer, and no motion by or on behalf of Samsung — and the case is still listed as "Pending Judge Assignment" (Ex Parte). Because the case is two days old (filed 08/26/2026) and the docket shows no proof of service or waiver, Samsung's 21-day answer clock (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i)) — or the 60-day window if a waiver request is used — has not yet begun to run, and no defense firm has had occasion to appear.

Not to be confused

One search result returned a District of Nevada habeas case also numbered 2:26-cv-00760 (Yemane-Barie v. Noem), with appointed FPD counsel; that is an entirely unrelated case and should be disregarded for this analysis.

What to monitor (clearly labeled as expectation, not fact)

I found no source identifying whom Samsung will retain, and I will not speculate as if it were fact. For verification going forward, watch the PACER docket for the first defense-side entries, which in E.D. Tex. practice typically appear in this order: Summons Issued → Notice of Appearance / motion for pro hac vice (national counsel) + designation of local counsel → Answer or Rule 12 motion. Samsung has a documented pattern in E.D. Tex. patent cases of retaining major national IP litigation firms (e.g., Quinn Emanuel, WilmerHale, Alston & Bird, K&L Gates-type firms) with Texas local counsel, and it historically files defensive PTAB IPRs in input-device cases — but no such retention is confirmed in any retrievable source for this case, and no attorney names can be truthfully provided today.

Bottom line

Defense counsel of record: none yet. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. has not appeared, been served (per the public docket), or filed anything. The only attorney on the docket remains plaintiff's counsel Cortney Alexander (for FTM). Any attorney list purporting to name Samsung's counsel in this case at this date would be fabricated; the accurate statement is that the docket shows no defendant-side appearance as of 2026-08-28.