Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. is a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Network-1 Technologies, Inc., a publicly traded technology licensing company recognized as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that focuses on acquiring, developing, and monetizing intellectual property. The plaintiff's business model revolves around licensing its patent portfolios and engaging in litigation when necessary to protect its intellectual property. The defendants are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Samsung is a global technology conglomerate and operating company renowned for its diversified business in consumer electronics, including smartphones, televisions, home appliances, and semiconductors. Network-1 has accused Samsung of infringing US patent 12166869, specifically related to eSIM and 5G technology used in various mobile and Internet of Things (IoT) devices. This patent is part of Network-1's M2M/IoT portfolio and generally covers enabling technologies for authenticating, provisioning, and using embedded subscriber identification module (eSIM) technology.

The case is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation, often characterized as a "rocket docket" due to its accelerated trial schedules and historical reputation for being plaintiff-friendly. Despite the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision, which aimed to restrict venue choices, plaintiffs like Network-1 have continued to file in EDTX by targeting foreign parent companies in addition to their U.S. subsidiaries, allowing them to circumvent stricter venue requirements. The court has already denied Samsung's motion to focus asserted patent claims, and a Markman (claim construction) hearing is scheduled for December 14, 2026, with jury selection slated for June 7, 2027.

This litigation is notable within the patent landscape as it exemplifies Network-1's consistent strategy of asserting patents against major technology companies across various portfolios, which have historically included Power over Ethernet (PoE), content monetization, and document stream operating systems, generating significant licensing revenues. The assertion of patents related to eSIM and 5G against a market leader like Samsung underscores the ongoing tension between NPEs and operating companies in critical, widely adopted technologies, highlighting the financial stakes in the rapidly evolving mobile and IoT sectors. An Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00117) was filed against patent 12166869 on November 20, 2025, suggesting parallel challenges to the patent's validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Network-1 Technologies, Inc. against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, concerns U.S. Patent 12166869. The case is currently active, with key claim construction and trial dates scheduled.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-06-27: Network-1 Technologies, Inc. filed its initial Complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Dkt. No. 1).
• 2025-10-22: Network-1 filed an Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading in the case. (Dkt. No. 37).

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• 2026-01-13: Samsung filed an "Opposed Motion to Focus Asserted Patent Claims" (Dkt. No. 48). Samsung argued that Network-1's assertion of 85 claims across six patents was overly expansive and created an unnecessary burden, suggesting that narrowing was needed prior to claim construction.
• 2026-04-23: The Court, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, denied Samsung's motion to focus asserted patent claims without prejudice (Dkt. No. 63). The Court acknowledged Samsung's concern about the large number of asserted claims but agreed with Network-1 that the case was still in its early stages, with claim construction deadlines still months away.

3. Claim Construction (Markman):

• 2026-08-10: The parties are scheduled to begin the claim construction process.
• 2026-12-14: A Markman hearing is set for claim construction.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• Discovery is currently ongoing in the case. Specific strategic milestones beyond this general statement are not yet publicly detailed in the provided information.

5. Trial Events:

• 2027-06-07: Jury selection for the trial is scheduled.

6. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• As of the current date, there is no public information indicating any active or concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) specifically challenging US patent 12166869. Searches for IPRs and PGRs related to this patent did not yield relevant results.

7. Present Posture:
The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, proceeding towards claim construction and a jury trial. The Markman hearing is set for December 14, 2026, and jury selection for June 7, 2027.## Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Network-1 Technologies, Inc. against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, concerns U.S. Patent 12166869, along with several other patents. The case is currently active, with key claim construction and trial dates scheduled.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-06-27: Network-1 Technologies, Inc. filed its initial Complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc..
• 2025-10-22: Network-1 filed an Amended Complaint, which is the operative pleading in the case. (Dkt. No. 37).
• Date not specified (filed after 2025-10-22): Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint, which included Counterclaims against Network-1 Technologies, Inc.. The specifics of these counterclaims are not detailed in the available information.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Date filed not specified (prior to 2025-10-28): A motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 25) was filed by Samsung.
• 2025-10-28: The Court denied Samsung's motion to dismiss.
• 2026-01-13: Samsung filed an "Opposed Motion to Focus Asserted Patent Claims" (Dkt. No. 48). Samsung argued that Network-1's assertion of 85 claims across six patents was overly expansive and created an unnecessary burden, particularly given Network-1's refusal to narrow claims before claim construction.
• 2026-04-23: The Court, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, denied Samsung's motion to focus asserted patent claims without prejudice (Dkt. No. 63). The Court acknowledged Samsung's concern about the large number of asserted claims but agreed with Network-1 that the case was still in its early stages, with the earliest claim construction-related deadline still over three months away.

3. Claim Construction (Markman):

• 2026-08-10: The parties are scheduled to begin the claim construction process.
• 2026-12-14: A Markman hearing is set for claim construction.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• 2025-10-15: A Discovery Order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• 2025-10-21: A Protective Order was signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
• Discovery is currently ongoing in the case, but no further strategic milestones are publicly detailed.

5. Trial Events:

• 2027-06-07: Jury selection for the trial is scheduled.

6. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• As of May 29, 2026, there is no public information indicating any active or concluded Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) specifically challenging U.S. Patent 12166869. General searches for PTAB cases did not yield results for this specific patent.

7. Present Posture:
The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, proceeding towards claim construction and a jury trial. The Markman hearing is set for December 14, 2026, and jury selection for June 7, 2027.

The plaintiff, Network-1 Technologies, Inc., is represented by a team of attorneys from several firms.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff:

• Wesley Hill (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC
  • Office Location: Longview, Texas
  • Relevant Experience: Wesley Hill is a veteran of East Texas courts with experience trying over a dozen patent infringement trials to verdict, securing multi-million dollar plaintiff's verdicts. He was part of a team that secured a $502.8 million patent infringement win against Apple Inc. for VirnetX and a $62.7 million award for Solas OLED Ltd. against Samsung Display Company Ltd.

• Michael J. Newton (Lead Counsel / Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Alston & Bird LLP (formerly associated with Potter Minton and now with Alston & Bird according to current information available)
  • Office Location: Dallas, Texas (and Palo Alto, California according to Alston & Bird profile)
  • Relevant Experience: Michael Newton is a partner in the Intellectual Property Litigation Group with significant experience litigating complex patent infringement cases, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas. He has represented clients in numerous federal courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

• Jeffrey E. Ostrow (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
  • Office Location: New York, New York
  • Relevant Experience: Jeffrey Ostrow is an intellectual property litigation partner with over 20 years of experience litigating IP cases for technology companies including Intel, Cisco Systems, HP, Qualcomm, and Spotify. He previously chaired the IP Group at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP and has advised on hundreds of M&A and capital markets transactions involving intellectual property. He has also spoken on managing local patent rules in district court litigation.

• David S. Flugman (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Selendy Gay PLLC (previously associated with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP)
  • Office Location: New York, New York
  • Relevant Experience: David Flugman is a seasoned litigator who has represented clients in a wide array of matters, including offensive and defensive patent infringement litigation involving smartphones in the International Trade Commission. He has extensive experience handling complex commercial disputes.

Other firms and attorneys also listed as representing the plaintiff include:

• Heim Payne & Chorush LLP (with attorneys Michael F. Heim, Eric J. Enger, William B. Collier, Jr., R. Allan Bullwinkel).
• Miller Fair Henry PLLC (with attorneys Claire A. Henry, Andrea L. Fair).
• Alavi Anaipakos PLLC (with attorneys Amir H. Alavi, Michael McBride, Masood Anjom, Steven T. Jugle, Connie Jones, Christopher R. Pinckney).
• Ahmad Zavitsanos Anaipakos Alavi & Mensing (with attorney Demetrios Anaipakos).

The roles (lead, of counsel) for these additional listed attorneys are generally indicated by their association with firms frequently acting as lead or local counsel in patent cases within the Eastern District of Texas. The search results did not explicitly define the role for every individual attorney from these additional firms in this specific case, beyond their general capacity as "Plaintiff Attorney."

The following attorneys are identified as counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00667):

Outside Counsel:

• Jonathan Clark
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Likely)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Location not specified in snippet, but the firm has multiple offices)
  • Experience Note: O'Melveny & Myers is a prominent firm often involved in high-stakes patent litigation for major technology companies.
• Laura B. Gore
  • Role: Counsel (Likely)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Location not specified in snippet)
  • Experience Note: O'Melveny & Myers is a prominent firm often involved in high-stakes patent litigation for major technology companies.
• Nicholas J. Whilt
  • Role: Counsel (Likely)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Los Angeles
  • Experience Note: O'Melveny & Myers is a prominent firm often involved in high-stakes patent litigation for major technology companies.
• Marc J. Pensabene
  • Role: Counsel (Likely)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Location not specified in snippet)
  • Experience Note: O'Melveny & Myers is a prominent firm often involved in high-stakes patent litigation for major technology companies.
• Ryan K. Yagura
  • Role: Counsel (Likely)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP - Los Angeles
  • Experience Note: O'Melveny & Myers is a prominent firm often involved in high-stakes patent litigation for major technology companies.
• Melissa Richards Smith
  • Role: Local Counsel (Common for Eastern District of Texas cases)
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith, LLP (Location not specified in snippet, but typically Marshall, TX for EDTX local counsel)
  • Experience Note: Gillam & Smith is a well-known firm for local counsel representation in the Eastern District of Texas.

In-House Counsel (General Samsung IP Litigation Management, likely coordinating with outside counsel):

While not explicitly listed as appearing in the docket for this specific case, the following individuals serve as Principal Legal Counsel at Samsung and are involved in coordinating patent litigation, suggesting their oversight of this matter:

• Matthew Bathon
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel, In-House
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics
  • Experience Note: Coordinates Samsung's ITC and district court dockets and has prior experience as a partner at Steptoe LLP litigating Section 337 investigations and IP disputes.
• Tim Jezek
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel, In-House
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics America
  • Experience Note: Focuses on IP litigation and related policy issues, with over two decades of litigation and intellectual property counseling experience.
• Phillip Lee
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel, In-House
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics US IP Center
  • Experience Note: Veteran litigator with experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing, appearing before federal district courts, the PTAB, ITC, and Federal Circuit.
• Alexander Hyung-Joon Lee
  • Role: Counsel (External)
  • Firm: White & Case LLP, Silicon Valley
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property, technology, and AI-related matters, with experience in multi-national IP disputes across major forums (U.S., Korea, Japan, and Europe).