Monticello Enterprises LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

In a significant patent infringement action, Monticello Enterprises LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE), targeted Samsung Electronics America, Inc. over its widely used mobile payment service. The lawsuit, filed on October 20, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleged that Samsung's "Samsung Pay" technology infringed U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828. This patent, titled "System and method for receiving data at a merchant device from a user device over a wireless link," generally covers methods for conducting payments by establishing a wireless connection between a personal mobile device and a merchant's point-of-sale device. Samsung, a global leader in consumer electronics, offers Samsung Pay as a digital wallet and mobile payment service on its devices, allowing users to make payments in person, in-app, and online. Monticello's complaint is part of a broader litigation campaign that also targeted other major companies like Starbucks, Macy's, and Petco for their use of mobile payment systems.

The case was filed in the Waco division of the Western District of Texas, a venue that became a hub for patent litigation under Judge Alan Albright due to its plaintiff-friendly reputation and expedited schedules. The Samsung case, along with suits against other retailers, was consolidated into a lead case (6:23-cv-00753-XR) for judicial efficiency. In a decisive turn of events, the defendants, including merchants who accept payments via systems like Samsung Pay, jointly moved for summary judgment. They argued that their use of the technology was protected by sublicenses granted by payment service providers like Samsung, Google, and Apple, who had previously licensed the patents from an entity authorized by Monticello. On February 27, 2026, Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland recommended granting the motion. This recommendation was subsequently adopted in part by U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez, who granted summary judgment and dismissed the consolidated cases on March 18, 2026.

This litigation is notable as it represents a common NPE strategy of asserting patents against a wide range of companies that utilize a common technology platform. The defendants' successful and coordinated defense, centered on the argument of license exhaustion and the existence of a valid sublicense, provides a significant strategic lesson for companies facing similar multi-defendant patent campaigns. The dismissal of the entire consolidated action, including the case against Samsung, marks a substantial setback for Monticello's assertion efforts regarding its mobile payment patent portfolio. The case also highlights the continuing activity of patent assertion entities in the mobile commerce and fintech sectors. Further indicating challenges to Monticello's portfolio, a related patent, U.S. Patent 11,468,497, which was asserted against other retailers in the consolidated case, was subject to a request for ex parte reexamination at the USPTO that was granted in June 2024.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Based on an analysis of court filings and legal reporting, the patent infringement litigation between Monticello Enterprises LLC and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. was a short-lived case, resolved not on the merits of the patent's validity or infringement, but through a dispositive motion based on a license defense as part of a broader consolidated action.

Filing & Consolidation (2023-2024)

• 2023-10-20: Monticello Enterprises LLC ("Monticello") filed its complaint against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("Samsung") in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828 by Samsung's "Samsung Pay" mobile payment technology. This lawsuit was one of several similar cases filed by Monticello against other large retailers and tech companies that utilize in-app or mobile payment systems.
• 2024-04-19: The case against Samsung, along with parallel cases Monticello filed against Starbucks (6:23-cv-00763) and Petco (6:23-cv-00761), was consolidated into a lead case, Monticello Enterprises LLC v. Macy's, Inc., et al. (6:23-cv-00753-XR), before Chief Judge Xavier Rodriguez. This procedural move was agreed upon by the parties to streamline proceedings, as the cases involved common patents, technologies, and legal issues. Following the consolidation, the individual case docket for the Samsung matter was administratively closed.

Dispositive Motion & Judgment (2026)

• Joint Motion for Summary Judgment: After consolidation, the defendants, including Samsung, filed a joint motion for summary judgment. The central argument was that they were not liable for infringement because they were beneficiaries of sublicenses to Monticello's patents. These sublicenses were established through "Patent Sublicense Agreements" (PSAs) that the patent owner had made with Apple, Google, and Samsung (the "Initial Sublicensees"). The defendants, as merchants using Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay, contended that these agreements sheltered their use of the accused payment systems.
• 2026-02-27: Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") advising the district court to grant the defendants' summary judgment motion.
• 2026-03-18: Final Judgment and Dismissal: Chief Judge Xavier Rodriguez adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in part, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the consolidated cases. The court agreed with the defendants' license-based defense, finding that their use of the mobile payment systems was covered by the sublicenses granted to Apple, Google, and Samsung. This order effectively terminated the litigation in Samsung's favor.

Case Posture and Outcome

The litigation did not reach the stages of claim construction (Markman hearing), trial, or a verdict on the merits of infringement or patent validity. The case was fully resolved at the pre-trial stage by the dispositive summary judgment ruling. As of today's date, the case is closed at the district court level. There is no public record of an appeal.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records indicates that Samsung did not file an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,461,828. This suggests that Samsung and the other co-defendants relied on their collective license-based defense in district court rather than mounting a parallel validity challenge at the PTAB for this specific patent.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on court filings, counsel for Plaintiff Monticello Enterprises LLC consists of a team from the New York-based intellectual property boutique Fabricant LLP serving as lead counsel, supported by the Texas-based litigation firm Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now operating as Miller Fair Henry) as local counsel.

While the specific case 6:23-cv-00763 against Samsung has been identified, it is part of a broader litigation campaign by Monticello. An expert witness retained by defendants in related litigation lists this case number as being against Starbucks Corporation and notes that it has been consolidated with other cases into a lead case, Monticello Enterprises LLC v. Macy's, Inc. et al., 6:23-cv-00753 (W.D. Tex.). The attorneys listed below filed the initial complaint in the consolidated actions and are believed to be counsel of record for Monticello against Samsung.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Alfred R. Fabricant

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP (New York, NY)
  • Note: A veteran first-chair patent trial lawyer, Fabricant has litigated high-stakes technology cases for over 35 years and was ranked among the top 10 patent litigators nationwide in a 2026 Patexia report.

• Name: Matthew D. Wirostek

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fabricant LLP (New York, NY)
  • Note: Wirostek has experience in patent litigation across various technologies and has represented clients in numerous federal district courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Local Counsel

• Name: T. John "Johnny" Ward, Jr.

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry) (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Ward is a highly regarded East Texas trial lawyer with numerous major courtroom victories in patent cases against companies like Apple, Samsung, and Microsoft.

• Name: T. John Ward

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry) (Longview, TX)
  • Note: A former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, he presided over one of the nation's busiest patent dockets before returning to private practice.

Counsel for Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

As of May 8, 2026, court filings indicate that defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is represented by attorneys from The Webb Law Firm. This specific case, Monticello Enterprises LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (6:23-cv-00763), has been consolidated with other related cases into a lead case, Monticello Enterprises LLC v. Macy's Inc., et al. (6:23-cv-00753-XR), before Chief Judge Xavier Rodriguez in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Counsel for the defendants in this consolidated action has been identified through expert witness declarations filed in the proceedings.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Bryan P. Clark
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: The Webb Law Firm (Pittsburgh, PA)
  • Note on Experience: Mr. Clark is a partner at The Webb Law Firm with a practice focused on intellectual property litigation. An expert witness retained for the defendants in the consolidated cases lists Mr. Clark as the primary legal contact.

It is common for a lead counsel from a firm specializing in patent law to be supported by other attorneys from the same firm and by local counsel in the jurisdiction where the case is filed. However, specific notices of appearance for other attorneys from The Webb Law Firm or for local counsel for Samsung in this consolidated case are not available in the public search results. Therefore, the information regarding additional counsel remains unconfirmed.

There is no public record of counsel from other firms that frequently represent Samsung in patent matters, such as McGuireWoods or Baker Botts, having filed a notice of appearance specifically in this consolidated case.