Litigation

Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

stayed

2:24-cv-00140-JRG-RSP

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Filed: 2024-02-27

Patents at issue (4)

7745886 PTAB settled/terminated

Plaintiffs (1)

π Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC

Defendants (2)

Summary

Harbor Island Dynamic sued Samsung for infringement of the '886 patent and related patents based on Samsung's Antenna Switch and Coupler die (e.g., PK5562_01), allegedly used in the Galaxy S22 Ultra. The case was stayed pending the PTAB IPR proceedings.

Case overview & background

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

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

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 7745886-2-24-cv-00140-jrg-rsp · edit in Admin

Further reading

How to read a patent claim
A patent has a 50-page specification, a fancy abstract, and a row of figures. Lawyers and courts look at none of that. They look at the claims.
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. (2002)
Narrow your claim during prosecution and you presumptively give up the equivalents in between. The presumption is rebuttable, but in practice the prosecution history is a defendant's gold mine.
Lumen View v. FindTheBest (2013-2016): when a defendant fought back, the troll paid
Same patent. Same plaintiff playbook. Different outcome — because the defendant had the resources and the will to fight. Most don't. That's the asymmetry this site is built to fix.
District court vs. PTAB: where to fight a patent challenge
Every defendant who actually fights a patent ends up choosing — sometimes implicitly — between district court invalidity, PTAB IPR, or both in parallel. The trade-offs are not symmetric; the choice often determines the case.
Patent term and expiration
Patents don't last forever. They don't even reliably last 20 years. The expiration date that actually matters depends on the earliest filing date, the maintenance schedule, and any USPTO or FDA delays the patent owner can claim back.

All resources →