Freedom Patents, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Freedom Patents, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) also known as a patent assertion entity (PAE), initiated patent infringement litigation against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Harman International Industries, Inc.. As an NPE, Freedom Patents LLC focuses exclusively on monetizing wireless communication patents through licensing and litigation, rather than manufacturing or selling products. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a global technology conglomerate headquartered in South Korea, widely recognized as a major manufacturer of consumer electronics such as smartphones, tablets, and televisions. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is its U.S. subsidiary, while Harman International Industries, Inc., an American audio electronics company known for brands like JBL, operates as an independent subsidiary of Samsung Electronics. The litigation targeted a range of Samsung and Harman products, including the Samsung Galaxy S24+ smartphone, Galaxy Book4 Pro laptop, Galaxy Tab S9+ tablet, Neo QLED 65″ Smart TV, and the JBL Authentics 300 Smart Home Speaker. These products were accused of infringing by implementing IEEE 802.11ax (Wi-Fi 6) and MIMO (Multiple-Input Multiple-Output) Wi-Fi technology.

The primary patent at issue was U.S. Patent No. 8,514,815, though Freedom Patents typically asserts a portfolio of three former Mitsubishi Electric (MELCO) patents, including 8,374,096 and 8,284,686, in its campaigns. Patent 8,514,815 generally relates to wireless communications technology, specifically covering methods for selecting antennas in a MIMO wireless local area network (LAN) to enable faster and more reliable wireless transmission. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and presided over by Chief Judge Amos L. Mazzant III. The Eastern District of Texas is a historically plaintiff-friendly venue for patent litigation, known for its expedited trial schedules, specific local rules, and experienced patent juries. This venue is often favored by NPEs due to these characteristics, and Chief Judge Mazzant is recognized for his extensive experience in patent disputes.

This case is notable as part of a broader assertion campaign by Freedom Patents LLC, an NPE that has sued numerous defendants over patents acquired from Mitsubishi Electric, targeting widely adopted wireless communication standards like Wi-Fi 6. The rapid termination of the case—dismissed with prejudice just 70 days after filing—suggests an early settlement, which is a common strategy in NPE litigation to resolve disputes efficiently while conserving resources for continued assertion against other parties. While the specific financial terms of the resolution were not publicly disclosed, the dismissal with prejudice means Freedom Patents cannot refile these claims against Samsung or Harman on the asserted patent. This pattern highlights the ongoing challenges faced by major consumer electronics companies from NPEs asserting fundamental technology patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Freedom Patents, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

The patent infringement lawsuit filed by Freedom Patents, LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Harman International Industries, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas was short-lived, concluding with a dismissal with prejudice less than three months after its filing. The case primarily involved U.S. Patent 8,514,815.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

• 2024-06-14: Complaint Filed. Freedom Patents, LLC initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, accusing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Harman International Industries, Inc. of infringing U.S. Patent 8,514,815.
• 2024-08-23: Dismissal with Prejudice. Chief Judge Amos L. Mazzant issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice. The order stipulated that each party would bear its own attorney fees, costs, and expenses. The rapid termination of the case, without reaching substantive pre-trial motions, claim construction, or discovery milestones, strongly suggests an early settlement between the parties or a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff.

Pre-trial Motions, Claim Construction, Discovery, and Trial:
Given the expedited dismissal of the case within approximately two months, the litigation did not advance to significant pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay), claim construction (Markman) proceedings, discovery, or trial events.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
A search for parallel Post-Grant Review (PGR) or Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings concerning U.S. Patent 8,514,815 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not yield any active or relevant results for the specified patent. Therefore, no PTAB proceedings impacted this particular district court litigation.

Final Disposition:
The case was officially terminated on August 23, 2024, with a dismissal with prejudice, indicating a final resolution of the claims against the defendants, preventing Freedom Patents, LLC from bringing the same claims again. Each party bore its own legal costs.

News and analysis coverage specifically pertaining to Freedom Patents, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Eastern District of Texas, filed 2024-06-14, terminated 2024-08-23, concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,514,815) is limited.

One relevant report from RPX Empower on June 15, 2024, noted that Freedom Patents LLC filed a new wave of litigation, including a separate suit against Samsung (4:24-cv-00540), asserting the same three former Mitsubishi Electric (MELCO) patents, including 8,514,815, and targeting devices that implement MIMO Wi-Fi capabilities. This indicates that the lawsuit against Samsung was part of a broader campaign by Freedom Patents LLC, an NPE that often asserts a portfolio of three patents (8,514,815, 8,374,096, and 8,284,686) against various technology companies for alleged infringement related to Wi-Fi technology.

While specific details about the settlement terms in Freedom Patents, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. were not publicly disclosed, the rapid dismissal with prejudice suggests an early, confidential settlement, which is a common practice in NPE litigation campaigns to resolve disputes efficiently and conserve resources for continued assertion against other parties. The fact that each party bore its own attorney fees, costs, and expenses is also typical of such negotiated outcomes where neither party concedes liability. The case's swift resolution, within approximately two months, is notably shorter than the median for patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

Other search results indicate that Freedom Patents LLC has filed similar patent infringement suits involving the same patents against other defendants, such as ON Semiconductor, Broadcom, and Realtek Semiconductor, with these cases also concluding in dismissals with prejudice after relatively short durations, often suggesting confidential settlements or licensing agreements. This highlights Freedom Patents' ongoing assertion campaign involving wireless communication technology patents. While news outlets frequently cover large verdicts or significant rulings in Samsung patent litigation, the specific Freedom Patents case against Samsung did not generate extensive individual press coverage beyond its initial filing, likely due to its quick, undisclosed resolution.

Sources

• rpxcorp.com
• patsnap.com
• patsnap.com
• patsnap.com
• mckoolsmith.com
• azalaw.com
• quinnemanuel.com
• legalnewsline.com
• abajournal.com
• analystip.com
• youtube.com
• chosun.com

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Freedom Patents, LLC

The plaintiff, Freedom Patents, LLC, was represented by attorneys from two firms: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP and The Stafford Davis Firm, PC. Jon Rowan is identified as the manager of Freedom Patents, LLC, but not as counsel of record in this case.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP (Houston, TX)

• Zachariah S. Harrington
  • Role: Partner (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Mr. Harrington is a founding partner of the firm and an intellectual property attorney with experience litigating complex patent cases across various jurisdictions, including the Eastern District of Texas. He was involved in serving summons in this case.
• Matthew J. Antonelli
  • Role: Partner (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Mr. Antonelli is a founding partner with extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, and has experience with trials, Markman hearings, and reexaminations before the Patent Office.
• Larry D. Thompson, Jr.
  • Role: Partner (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Mr. Thompson is a founding partner with substantial patent litigation and arbitration experience, including motion practice, discovery, and negotiating patent litigation settlements.
• Rehan Mohammed Safiullah
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Mr. Safiullah entered an appearance for Freedom Patents LLC. His firm focuses exclusively on patent litigation.
• Hannah D. Price
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP, Houston, TX
  • Note: Ms. Price entered an appearance for Freedom Patents LLC. While a recent report suggests she joined Legal Aid of North Carolina in 2025, at the time of this case's termination in August 2024, she was listed with Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP. Her practice areas included intellectual property.

The Stafford Davis Firm, PC (Tyler, TX)

• Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis
  • Role: Partner (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: The Stafford Davis Firm, PC, Tyler, TX
  • Note: Mr. Davis is the founder of The Stafford Davis Firm and an experienced first-chair trial lawyer who has achieved multi-million dollar recoveries for clients, including in intellectual property litigation, in both federal and state courts across Texas.
• Catherine Susan Bartles
  • Role: Associate Attorney (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: The Stafford Davis Firm, PC, Tyler, TX
  • Note: Ms. Bartles has successfully examined witnesses at trial, argued directed verdicts and summary judgments, and drafted case-dispositive motions since joining the firm.

Freedom Patents, LLC (Plaintiff Entity)

• Jon Rowan
  • Role: Manager of Freedom Patents, LLC
  • Firm: Not applicable; associated directly with the plaintiff entity.
  • Note: Mr. Rowan is a Texas patent attorney identified as the manager of Freedom Patents, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE). His role involves managing the patent portfolio and litigation strategy for the entity, rather than serving as direct courtroom counsel in this specific case. He is also associated with other litigating NPEs.

I'll research the defendant-side counsel of record for this case.

I found the key defense counsel signal (Melissa Smith / Gillam & Smith LLP). Let me verify and find all defendant-side appearances.

Let me pull the actual docket entries beyond filing 16 and identify lead counsel.

Counsel of Record for Defendants

Bottom line: On the retrievable public record, the only defense attorney who appears as counsel of record in this case is Melissa R. Smith of Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, TX) — local and, at least at the pleading stage, sole counsel of record for all three defendants. No out-of-town lead counsel or in-house attorney is identifiable from the docket records I could access; the free dockets stop at Dkt. 16 (July 12, 2024), before the case was closed on August 23, 2024.

Confirmed appearance

Sources: Justia docket for Freedom Patents LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 4:24-cv-00540 (E.D. Tex.) (last retrieved July 12, 2024) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/4:2024cv00540/[230843](/patent/230843); RPX Insight — https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-230843-freedom-patents-v-samsung-electronics; PatSnap case report ("Defense representation was handled by Gillam & Smith LLP, a firm with deep roots in Eastern District patent defense") — https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/freedom-patents-vs-samsung-wi-fi-mimo-patent-dispute-ends-in-dismissal-patsnap-eureka/; firm bio — https://www.gillamsmithlaw.com/melissa.

What I could not confirm (say so explicitly)

• No notice of appearance by national/lead trial counsel appears in the retrievable docket. The publicly cached docket ends at Dkt. 16 (July 12, 2024); the joint motion to dismiss and the closing order of August 23, 2024 (Dkt. 17+) are not visible in the free sources I could reach, and I could not retrieve a PACER docket sheet directly. If Samsung/Harman retained out-of-town lead counsel (e.g., firms that regularly defend Samsung in E.D. Tex.), their appearances would most likely sit in that July–August 2024 window and are simply not in the free record.
• No in-house counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., or Harman is identified anywhere in the public filings I found. The July 2024 extension motion was filed by outside counsel only, and the order waived foreign service on Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Dkt. 16).
• No separate counsel for Harman is shown. The Dkt. 15 motion was filed jointly on behalf of all three defendants, indicating common representation at that stage, but nothing in the record confirms whether Harman later retained separate counsel (Harman does use separate outside counsel in other matters).
• Do not attribute the January 15, 2025 fee-motion filing (signed by Melissa R. Smith and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer's Jin-Suk Park, referencing Samsung's entitlement to attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285) to this case. That document, surfaced via a USPTO/PTAB document mirror, postdates this case's dismissal and is inconsistent with the Dkt. 16/terminal order here, under which each party bore its own fees. Which Samsung matter it belongs to is not established by the sources I could verify, so I am not listing Arnold & Porter as counsel in this case.
• The case's own PatSnap write-up credits defense representation to Gillam & Smith LLP; that is consistent with the docket's first-appearance signature but is a secondary source, not a court filing.

Flagged inconsistencies with the previously generated sections

1. The News section mischaracterizes the case number. It describes "a separate suit against Samsung (4:24-cv-00540)" from this action. In fact, 4:24-cv-00540 is this case — same filing date (June 14, 2024), same three patents (including 8,514,815), same judge (Mazzant), same termination date (August 23, 2024). There does not appear to be a separate parallel Samsung suit in that campaign; the RPX item described Freedom Patents' broader wave of filings against other defendants.
2. Party-name variance. The metadata lists "Samsung Electronics America, Inc." and "Harman International Industries, Inc."; the docket also carries Samsung Telecommunications America LLC as a named defendant/alias (the complaint sues "Samsung Electronics America, Inc. f/k/a Samsung Telecommunications America LLC"). The caption in the complaint is styled as E.D. Tex. Sherman Division, No. 4:24-cv-540.
3. The prior sections do not address defense counsel at all, so there is no conflict on that point — this section fills the gap. The prior "Key legal developments" statement that no PTAB proceedings affected the case is unaffected by anything I found here.