G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, G+ Communications, LLC v. [[Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.), centered on allegations that Samsung's 5G-capable smartphones infringed patents deemed essential to wireless communication standards. The plaintiff, G+ Communications, LLC, is a licensing firm and Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that acquired its portfolio of 5G standard-essential patents (SEPs) from the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE. The defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its American subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., are global leaders in consumer electronics, including the manufacturing of mobile phones, network systems, and semiconductors. G+ Communications accused Samsung of incorporating patented, unlicensed wireless features into various products from its Galaxy line of mobile phones. The primary patent at issue was US Patent 10736130, which broadly covers Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) information transmitting and receiving methods in wireless nodes, a fundamental mechanism for reliable data transmission in LTE and 5G wireless standards.

The case was litigated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a venue well-known for its high volume of patent litigation. This choice of venue is strategically important for many patent plaintiffs. The litigation involved extensive arguments over Samsung's compliance with Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations, given the asserted patents' status as SEPs for 5G technology. An initial jury found Samsung infringed Patent 10736130 and another patent, awarding G+ Communications $67.5 million in damages. However, Judge Gilstrap ordered a damages retrial due to concerns about jury confusion, which subsequently led to a higher award of $142 million.

This case is notable for several reasons, including the substantial damages awarded in the retrial and its connection to complex FRAND licensing issues for 5G SEPs. Critically, the original verdict concerning US Patent 10736130 was ultimately "wiped away" by the district court after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled the patent invalid. This PTAB invalidity ruling for US Patent 10736130 was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit on July 30, 2026, leading to the termination of the case and the final invalidation of the patent. This IPR linkage and the appellate invalidation of a patent that had secured a significant jury verdict underscore the challenges and multi-faceted nature of patent enforcement, particularly for SEPs.

The patent infringement litigation G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Case number: 2:22-CV-00078-JRG) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has seen a series of key legal developments, ultimately leading to the invalidation of U.S. Patent 10736130 on appeal.

Here is a chronological list of key legal developments and outcomes:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • March 14, 2022: G+ Communications, LLC filed its complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., asserting infringement of five patents, including U.S. Patent 10736130.
  • Samsung subsequently filed counterclaims, including allegations that G+ failed to comply with its Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) obligations. G+ moved to dismiss Samsung's FRAND counterclaims.
  • September 28, 2022: The District Court denied G+'s motion to dismiss Samsung's FRAND counterclaims, finding that Samsung had sufficiently pleaded factual allegations to demonstrate a breach of FRAND obligations.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • April 2023: The court denied Samsung's motion to deny G+'s FRAND claims, indicating ongoing disputes regarding FRAND obligations.
  • July 13, 2023: The District Court issued a Claim Construction (Markman) Memorandum Opinion and Order for the asserted patents.
  • August 30, 2023: The court addressed a discovery dispute, denying G+'s motion to exclude late-produced documents from Samsung.
  • January 8, 2024: The court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order ruling that Samsung could not impute the FRAND-related conduct of G+'s predecessor, ZTE Corporation, to G+ for the purpose of Samsung's breach of FRAND counterclaim. However, such evidence could be used by Samsung to defend against G+'s willful infringement claim.

• Trial Events & Verdict:

  • January 19, 2024: A jury trial commenced, with G+ asserting infringement of U.S. Patents 8761776, 10736130, and 10594443. Samsung asserted invalidity defenses for all three patents.
  • January 26, 2024: The jury returned a verdict finding that Samsung infringed U.S. Patent 8761776 and U.S. Patent 10736130, but not U.S. Patent 10594443. The jury awarded G+ a total of $67.5 million in running royalties for the infringement of these two patents ($45 million for the '776 patent and $22.5 million for the '130 patent). The jury also found that G+ had not breached its FRAND obligations and rejected Samsung's invalidity claims for anticipation, obviousness, and lack of adequate written description.
  • March 1, 2024: The District Court sua sponte ordered a new trial on damages for U.S. Patents 8761776 and 10736130, citing concerns about jury confusion regarding whether the awarded damages were a running royalty or a lump sum.
  • April 17, 2024: A second jury trial on damages resulted in a significantly higher award of $142 million against Samsung ($61 million for the '776 patent and $81 million for the '130 patent).
  • March 14, 2025: The District Court denied G+'s Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law that Claim 10 of U.S. Patent 10594443 was not patent-ineligible. The court found that the jury's verdict of patent ineligibility for this claim was supported by sufficient evidence.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings & Effect on Litigation:

  • Samsung filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent 10736130. The IPR case number was IPR2023-00171.
  • April 29, 2024: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision in IPR2023-00171, finding that claim 20 of U.S. Patent 10736130, the only claim asserted in the district court case, was unpatentable as anticipated by prior art.
  • June 13, 2024: In response to the PTAB's decision, the District Court ordered that G+'s claim of infringement related to U.S. Patent 10736130 be severed into a separate case (2:24-cv-00441-JRG) and stayed in its entirety pending the outcome of the Federal Circuit's appeal of the PTAB's decision.

• Final Disposition/Appeal:

  • July 30, 2026: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's ruling in IPR2023-00171, upholding the invalidity of U.S. Patent 10736130. This appellate decision formally solidified the invalidity of the patent. As a result, the district court verdict for U.S. Patent 10736130 was effectively "wiped away," and the severed case related to this patent is now resolved in favor of Samsung.

News and analysis coverage of G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. highlights a dynamic patent infringement battle involving 5G standard-essential patents (SEPs) originally developed by Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE, later acquired by G+ Communications. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, saw a jury initially find Samsung infringed two of G+'s patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,761,776 and U.S. Patent No. 10,736,130, awarding $67.5 million in running royalties for past sales in January 2024. This initial verdict comprised $45 million for the '776 patent and $22.5 million for the '130 patent. However, the district court, citing concerns about jury confusion regarding the form of the reasonable royalty, specifically whether it was a running royalty or a lump sum, ordered a retrial solely on damages. The retrial in April 2024 resulted in a significantly higher lump-sum award of $142 million against Samsung, with $61 million attributed to the '776 patent and $81 million to the '130 patent. This more than doubled the original damages and was the full amount G+ requested.

A significant aspect of the litigation involved the parties' obligations under Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms for SEPs. Samsung had counterclaimed that G+ failed to comply with its FRAND obligations, but the initial jury found that neither party breached their FRAND obligations. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap's rulings on FRAND were notable, determining that FRAND obligations are irrevocable but can be suspended if a party negotiates in bad faith, and that a party failing to negotiate in good faith could be liable for litigation costs. An analysis by IPWatchdog.com also discussed the court's stance on whether G+'s damages request violated FRAND, noting the distinction between contractual breach of FRAND and whether a damages request is FRAND. IPWatchdog.com further reported on the court's decision that the actions of the patents' prior owner, ZTE, could not be imputed to G+ for the purpose of a FRAND breach claim, though ZTE's past behavior could be relevant to Samsung's defense against willful infringement.

The case's trajectory shifted significantly for Patent 10736130 due to parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Shortly after the initial jury verdict, the PTAB ruled that US Patent 10736130 was invalid. Consequently, the district court "wiped away" the verdict for infringement of that patent. This PTAB invalidity ruling for US Patent 10736130 was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on July 30, 2026. IPWatchdog.com reported that the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision, finding that the Board did not violate the Administrative Procedures Act and that substantial evidence supported its findings that US Patent 10736130 was anticipated by prior art. Separately, U.S. Patent No. 8,761,776, which had $61 million of the damages from the retrial, successfully defended against an ex parte reexamination filed by Samsung at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, upholding the validity of all challenged claims. The case serves as a notable example for SEP owners and implementers, with Mintz characterizing the outcome of the damages retrial as a cautionary tale for implementers who may "hold out" in FRAND negotiations and a positive development for SEP owners seeking substantial damages in U.S. District Courts.

Sources

• vitallaw.com
• marshallnewsmessenger.com
• irell.com
• ipwatchdog.com
• ipwatchdog.com
• mintz.com
• ipfray.com
• mckoolsmith.com
• irell.com
• voiceofip.com
• ipwatchdog.com
• steptoe.com

Here is the counsel of record representing G+ Communications, LLC in G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:22-CV-00078-JRG):

Irell & Manella LLP (Co-Counsel for Plaintiff)

• Jason Sheasby

  • Role: Co-Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, California (implied by firm's primary California presence and Sheasby's recognition in Los Angeles Business Journal)
  • Experience: Secured a $142 million patent damages verdict for G+ Communications against Samsung in this case, and has a track record of winning over a billion dollars in verdicts across multiple complex, high-stakes patent trials against major tech companies, including a $400 million verdict against Samsung for KAIST IP and a $303 million award for Netlist against Samsung.

• Lisa Glasser

  • Role: Partner, Trial Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Irell & Manella LLP, Newport Beach, California
  • Experience: A formidable litigator with extensive trial experience in patent infringement and licensing disputes, she was part of the trial team that secured the $142 million verdict for G+ Communications against Samsung. Her notable victories include a $240 million jury verdict for StreamScale against Cloudera and a $303.15 million award for Netlist against Samsung.

• Michael Harbour

  • Role: Partner, Trial Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Irell & Manella LLP, likely California office (Los Angeles or Newport Beach)
  • Experience: Member of the Irell team that successfully litigated on behalf of G+ Communications against Samsung. He has also been involved in other significant patent litigation victories for Irell & Manella clients, including for Netlist against Samsung.

• Benjamin Manzin-Monnin

  • Role: Associate, Trial Team
  • Firm & Office Location: Irell & Manella LLP, likely California office (Los Angeles or Newport Beach)
  • Experience: Contributed to the trial efforts for G+ Communications against Samsung, and has been involved in other patent litigation for Irell & Manella, such as securing a $303.15 million verdict for Netlist against Samsung.

• Justin Linetski

  • Role: Associate, Trial Team
  • Firm & Office Location: Irell & Manella LLP, likely California office (Los Angeles or Newport Beach)
  • Experience: Part of the Irell team that secured the jury verdict for G+ Communications against Samsung.

McKool Smith (Co-Counsel for Plaintiff)

• Jennifer Truelove

  • Role: Principal, Trial Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: McKool Smith, Marshall, Texas
  • Experience: Led the McKool Smith team in securing the $142 million verdict for G+ Communications against Samsung. She was awarded "Attorney of the Year" by Texas Lawyer in 2024 for a string of victories, including a $1.4 billion settlement for the State of Texas against Meta Platforms/Facebook, a $445 million patent infringement verdict for Netlist against Micron Technology Inc., and a $192 million patent infringement verdict for Mojo Mobility against Samsung.

• Samuel Baxter

  • Role: Principal, Trial Team
  • Firm & Office Location: McKool Smith, Marshall, Texas (implied by "Marshall Principals")
  • Experience: Honored as a "Legal Lion of the Week" by Law360 for his role in the G+ Communications victory, and was also lead counsel for McKool Smith in a $1.4 billion settlement for the State of Texas against Meta Platforms/Facebook.

Here is the counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.:

Fish & Richardson P.C.
The following attorneys from Fish & Richardson represented Samsung:

• Ruffin Cordell (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C. office.
  • Experience Note: Ruffin Cordell is a highly experienced trial lawyer focusing on patent litigation across various technologies, including wireless communications.

• John Thornburgh (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Atlanta, GA office.
  • Experience Note: John Thornburgh has extensive experience in high-stakes patent litigation, particularly in the telecommunications and electronics industries.

• Michael McKeon (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Houston, TX office.
  • Experience Note: Michael McKeon specializes in patent litigation and intellectual property disputes, often appearing in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Ralph Phillips (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Houston, TX office.
  • Experience Note: Ralph Phillips' practice focuses on patent and intellectual property litigation, representing clients in various technology sectors.

• Linhong Zhang (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., New York, NY office.
  • Experience Note: Linhong Zhang has experience in patent litigation, particularly involving complex technologies.

• April Sunyoung Park (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C. office.
  • Experience Note: April Sunyoung Park focuses on patent litigation and intellectual property disputes.

• Leonard Davis (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX office.
  • Experience Note: Leonard Davis is a highly respected patent litigator and former Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, providing strategic counsel in complex patent cases.

• Thomas Reger (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX office.
  • Experience Note: Thomas Reger's practice includes patent litigation in federal district courts.

• Aleksandr Gelberg (Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C. office.
  • Experience Note: Aleksandr Gelberg is involved in patent infringement litigation, including matters before the PTAB and Federal Circuit.

Gillam & Smith LLP

• Melissa Smith (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX office.
  • Experience Note: Melissa Smith is a prominent local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, known for her patent litigation practice. While the initial search results also mentioned her representing Samsung in a related Netlist case, her role as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas for Samsung in significant patent disputes is consistent across various cases, making her highly likely to have served in that capacity here.