Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Massively Broadband 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.), was initiated by Massively Broadband LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its American subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Massively Broadband LLC, formed in February 2023, appears to operate as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), having acquired a portfolio of over 20 US patents from named inventor Theodore S. Rappaport in December 2024, shortly before filing this suit as its first known litigation. The defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., are major global operating companies known for their extensive range of consumer electronics, including mobile devices and telecommunications equipment. The accused products, while not exhaustively detailed in publicly available summaries for this specific patent, generally involve Samsung's wireless communication technologies, likely encompassing their mobile devices (smartphones, tablets) and related network functionalities.

The lawsuit specifically asserts U.S. Patent No. 8,593,358, among others. Patent '358 broadly pertains to "Adaptive modulation and coding for multi-carrier communication systems," describing methods and systems designed to enhance data transmission efficiency in wireless multi-carrier communication environments. The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue recognized for its significant patent litigation docket and often perceived as favorable to patentees, under the purview of Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The court has issued a docket control order structured to streamline the case by narrowing asserted claims and prior art to manage costs.

This case is notable for several reasons, reflecting common trends in patent litigation. It represents an NPE asserting a recently acquired patent portfolio against a major operating company, a frequent pattern in the intellectual property landscape. Furthermore, Samsung has responded with a robust defense, including filing multiple Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging various patents asserted by Massively Broadband, including IPR2025-01563 and others, indicating a parallel strategy to invalidate the patents in question. The involvement of prominent legal counsel, with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP for the plaintiff and K&L Gates LLP for the defendants, underscores the high-stakes nature of the dispute.

Key Legal Developments in Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Massively Broadband LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, is currently active. The case, number 2:25-cv-00608, was initiated on June 6, 2025, and involves U.S. Patent No. 8,593,358, among others.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Massively Broadband LLC filed its complaint alleging patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on June 6, 2025. The complaint accused Samsung of infringing a dozen patents transferred from inventor Theodore S. Rappaport, categorizing them into "Intelligent Wireless Broadband Relay Patents," "Smart Antenna Patents," and "Network Monitoring Patents."
• Extension for Response: On June 25, 2025, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the complaint. The motion also included a waiver of the foreign service requirement for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a foreign entity. This motion was granted, extending the deadline for Samsung to respond to September 29, 2025.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• As of the current date (May 15, 2026), detailed information on substantive pre-trial motions beyond the initial extension to respond to the complaint is not readily available in the provided search results. The case is still in its early to mid-stages.

Claim Construction (Markman)

• A Markman/Claim Construction Hearing has been set for November 10, 2026, at 9:00 AM before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This order was signed on October 10, 2025.

Discovery Milestones

• Initial Discovery: Documents related to discovery have been noted in PTAB filings. For instance, "Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff" was issued on October 21, 2025. Similarly, "Plaintiff's First Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants" was issued on October 31, 2025. Samsung's P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 Invalidity Contentions were filed on November 12, 2025.
• Docket Control Order: A First Amended Docket Control Order was issued and signed on October 20, 2025, outlining various deadlines, including a jury selection date of May 17, 2027.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• The case is active and has not yet reached the trial phase. A jury selection date is tentatively set for May 17, 2027.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The case is currently active and ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have been filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. against Massively Broadband LLC for various patents, including the one at issue in this litigation, U.S. Patent No. 8,593,358.

• IPR for Patent 8,593,358: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,593,358, identified as IPR2025-01587. This IPR proceeding is directly related to the district court litigation. As of the current date, the outcome of the institution decision for IPR2025-01587 (i.e., whether the PTAB decided to institute a review) is not available in the provided search results.
• Other Related IPRs: Samsung has also filed numerous other IPRs against Massively Broadband LLC concerning other patents asserted in the district court case, including IPR2025-01563 (for Patent No. 11,876,548), IPR2025-01564 (for Patent No. 11,063,625), IPR2025-01565 (for Patent No. 8,350,763), IPR2025-01594 (for Patent No. 10,224,999), IPR2025-01595 (for Patent No. 8,923,754), IPR2025-01605 (for Patent No. 10,797,783), and IPR2026-00032 (for Patent No. 8,515,925). These IPRs indicate a broader challenge by Samsung to Massively Broadband's asserted patent portfolio.## Key Legal Developments in Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Massively Broadband LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, is currently active. The case, number 2:25-cv-00608, was initiated on June 6, 2025, and involves U.S. Patent No. 8,593,358, among other patents.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Massively Broadband LLC initiated the lawsuit by filing its complaint alleging patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on June 6, 2025. The complaint specifically accused Samsung of infringing a portfolio of twelve patents, categorized as "Intelligent Wireless Broadband Relay Patents," "Smart Antenna Patents," and "Network Monitoring Patents," which were previously transferred from inventor Theodore S. Rappaport.
• Extension for Response: On June 25, 2025, the defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., filed an unopposed motion seeking an extension of time to file their responsive pleading (move, answer, or otherwise respond) to the complaint. This motion also included a waiver of the foreign service requirement for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., which is a foreign entity. The Court granted this motion, extending Samsung's deadline to respond to the complaint up to and including September 29, 2025.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• As of the current date (May 15, 2026), the publicly available information does not detail any substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss or transfer, that have been filed and ruled upon beyond the initial extension for the defendants to respond to the complaint. The case appears to be in its earlier stages of litigation.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• A Markman/Claim Construction Hearing has been scheduled to take place on November 10, 2026, at 9:00 AM before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This scheduling order was signed on October 10, 2025.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• Docket Control Order: On October 20, 2025, a First Amended Docket Control Order was signed and entered by the Court. This order established a schedule of deadlines for the case, including a tentative jury selection date of May 17, 2027.
• Interrogatories and Contentions: Initial discovery activities commenced in late 2025. Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff was issued on October 21, 2025. Subsequently, Plaintiff's First Set of Common Interrogatories to Defendants was issued on October 31, 2025. On November 12, 2025, Samsung filed its P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 Invalidity Contentions.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• The case is currently in the pre-trial phase, with a Markman hearing scheduled for late 2026 and a jury selection date set for May 2027. No trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred to date.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The case remains active and ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. No final disposition through settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been reached, nor has any appeal been initiated.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents and Their Effect on the Litigation

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. have initiated multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against patents owned by Massively Broadband LLC, including U.S. Patent No. 8,593,358, which is asserted in the district court litigation.

• IPR2025-01587 for U.S. Patent 8,593,358: Samsung filed a petition for IPR against U.S. Patent No. 8,593,358, designated as IPR2025-01587. This IPR directly challenges the validity of the patent at issue in the district court case. The current status of this IPR, specifically whether institution has been granted or denied, is not yet publicly available in the provided search results.
• Multiple IPR Filings: Samsung has engaged in a broader campaign to challenge Massively Broadband's patent portfolio by filing several other IPR petitions. These include IPR2025-01563 (for U.S. Patent No. 11,876,548), IPR2025-01564 (for U.S. Patent No. 11,063,625), IPR2025-01565 (for U.S. Patent No. 8,350,763), IPR2025-01594 (for U.S. Patent No. 10,224,999), IPR2025-01595 (for U.S. Patent No. 8,923,754), IPR2025-01605 (for U.S. Patent No. 10,797,783), and IPR2026-00032 (for U.S. Patent No. 8,515,925). The existence of these parallel IPRs indicates a comprehensive challenge to the asserted patents and could potentially lead to stays of the district court litigation if institution is granted by the PTAB for the challenged patents.

Based on the available information for Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00608), the following counsel has been identified as representing the plaintiff:

• Rachel E. Ellenberger
  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice) [cite: 1, 10 in previous search results]
  • Firm: K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Experience Note: Ms. Ellenberger is an associate in K&L Gates' Intellectual Property Litigation practice group.

While it is common practice for out-of-state attorneys to associate with local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas, no specific local counsel for Massively Broadband LLC in this case has been explicitly identified in the provided search results. Court documents frequently refer to "counsel for Plaintiff" generally.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing the defendants, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., in Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00608):

• Melissa Richards Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP, Tyler, Texas.
  • Note: Melissa Smith is an experienced trial lawyer in patent disputes, frequently representing clients in the Eastern District of Texas, including Samsung entities. Her firm, Gillam & Smith, LLP, has a strong track record defending Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Kevin Hardy

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from common practice for Quinn Emanuel attorneys in ETXT patent cases)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Kevin Hardy is an attorney at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, a firm known for its robust patent litigation practice.

• Sean S. Pak

  • Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from common practice for Quinn Emanuel attorneys in ETXT patent cases)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, California.
  • Note: Sean Pak is an attorney at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, a firm with extensive experience in high-stakes patent litigation.

• John Thomas McKee

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.
  • Note: John Thomas McKee is an attorney with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, a prominent firm in patent litigation.

• Matthew D Robson

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, New York.
  • Note: Matthew Robson is an attorney with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, which has a significant presence in patent infringement cases.

(Note: While other attorneys from firms like K&L Gates LLP and Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP are mentioned in the search results in the context of Samsung's patent litigation, the PACER Monitor entry for this specific case (2:25-cv-00608) primarily lists the counsel from Quinn Emanuel and Gillam & Smith as having appeared for "All Defendants" or specifically in relation to discovery letters for Samsung. Therefore, the above list focuses on those directly linked to appearances in this case. The roles of lead and local counsel are inferred based on the typical division of labor in Eastern District of Texas patent cases, where national firms often partner with local counsel.)