PayGeo, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

PayGeo, LLC, a likely non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., who are major global operating companies in consumer electronics and technology. PayGeo's complaint suggests its founder, Rabih Salem Ballout, invented digital wallet technology facilitating financial transactions between mobile devices, and the company does not currently identify any of its own products as practicing the asserted patents. The litigation asserts that Samsung's mobile payment services, specifically Samsung Pay and Samsung Pass, infringe PayGeo's intellectual property.

The lawsuit, PayGeo, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00334), was filed on April 1, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case is assigned to Judge Robert W. Schroeder III and referred to Judge Roy S. Payne. The Eastern District of Texas is a well-known venue for patent litigation, often favored by plaintiffs due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, an accelerated trial schedule often referred to as a "rocket docket," and a jury pool that has historically been considered sympathetic to patent holders. While the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision aimed to restrict patent venue, plaintiffs have adapted by sometimes targeting foreign parent companies to maintain venue in districts like the Eastern District of Texas.

PayGeo has asserted five patents: US10796296, US8554671, US10937018, US11087307, and US12014347. Broadly, these patents relate to digital wallet technology and systems for preventing fraudulent financial transactions in mobile environments. Specifically, the '671 Patent, '296 Patent, '018 Patent, '307 Patent, and '347 Patent generally describe a kit, system, and associated method and service for providing a platform to prevent fraudulent financial transactions, with a focus on mobile payment and transaction management. This case is notable due to the involvement of a prominent technology defendant, Samsung, and the concurrent inter partes review (IPR) proceedings initiated by Samsung against at least some of the asserted patents (e.g., IPR2025-01554 against the '671 Patent and IPR2025-01555 against the '347 Patent). The scheduled trial date in the Eastern District of Texas has been a factor in PTAB decisions regarding discretionary denial of institution of these IPRs under the Fintiv factors. The litigation is currently in its early stages, with a claim construction hearing set for October 21, 2026, and a jury selection scheduled for April 12-20, 2027.

The patent infringement litigation between PayGeo, LLC and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00334) in the Eastern District of Texas has seen several key legal developments since its filing on April 1, 2025.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2025-04-01): PayGeo, LLC initiated the lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., asserting infringement of five patents related to digital wallet technology and fraud prevention in mobile transactions: US10796296, US8554671, US10937018, US11087307, and US12014347. The complaint included a demand for a jury trial.
• PayGeo's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions (2025-04-25): PayGeo submitted its initial contentions outlining the specific claims asserted and how Samsung's products allegedly infringe.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Plaintiff's Opposed Motion to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses (2025-08-20): PayGeo filed a motion seeking to strike some of Samsung's affirmative defenses.
• Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (2025-08-29): Samsung filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
• Defendants' Invalidity Contentions (2025-11-03): Samsung submitted its contentions detailing its invalidity arguments against PayGeo's asserted patents.
• Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review (2026-01-05): Samsung moved to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings it initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Samsung has initiated IPR proceedings against at least two of PayGeo's asserted patents:

• IPR2025-01554 against US11087307: This IPR was filed by Samsung, challenging the validity of the '307 patent.
• IPR2025-01555 against US12014347: Samsung also filed this IPR, challenging the validity of the '347 patent.

A significant development in these IPRs relates to the USPTO's "Interim Process for PTAB Workload Management" and the expanded "settled expectations" doctrine for discretionary denials. This new process, implemented around March 2025, centralizes discretionary denial authority with the Director and expands the factors for such denials, including "settled expectations" based on the patent's age and petitioner's awareness.

In IPR2025-01555 (challenging the '347 patent), Samsung stipulated on November 6, 2025, that if the PTAB institutes the IPR, Samsung would not pursue in the district court litigation (2:25-cv-00334) any claims challenged in the IPR based on the specific grounds asserted, or any other ground that could have been reasonably raised in an IPR. This stipulation aims to address Fintiv factors, which consider the stage of the parallel district court litigation when deciding whether to institute an IPR.

Claim Construction (Markman)

A Claim Construction Hearing (Markman hearing) is currently scheduled for October 21, 2026.

Discovery Milestones

While specific strategic discovery milestones are not detailed in the available search results, the filing of PayGeo's infringement contentions (April 25, 2025) and Samsung's invalidity contentions (November 3, 2025) are key initial discovery-related events that shape the scope of the case.

Present Posture

The case is currently ongoing in its pre-trial phase. The upcoming key dates include the Claim Construction Hearing on October 21, 2026, and jury selection scheduled for April 19, 2027. The PTAB IPRs are also ongoing, with Samsung's motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the IPR outcomes still in play.

News and analysis coverage of PayGeo, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:25-cv-00334) is limited, primarily appearing in specialized intellectual property news outlets.

RPX's "Funded Paygeo Launches Litigation over Mobile Payments and Authentication" reported on April 5, 2025, that PayGeo LLC, formed in 2024, filed its first patent case against Samsung, alleging infringement of five patents related to secure financial transactions. The article states that PayGeo targets Samsung's "mobile payment and authentication platform" and associated services, including Samsung Knox, Samsung Pass, Samsung Pay, and Samsung Wallet, as well as incorporating devices like smartphones and smartwatches. The asserted patents broadly cover features such as biometric authentication, PIN codes, mobile payment authentication, and payment method registration and storage.

Other sources, such as IP Verse and Justia Dockets, also noted the case filing on April 1, 2025 (or April 2, 2025, according to PacerMonitor and Justia Dockets, indicating a slight variation in reporting of the exact filing date), confirming the case number, parties, and the five patents at issue, and listing legal representatives. IP Verse also highlights that the case involves patent infringement claims between the parties and lists the involved patents. PacerMonitor further specified the nature of the suit as "Property Rights - Patent" and the cause as "35:271 Patent Infringement".

The search results included numerous articles about other patent infringement cases against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas, indicating the court's prominence as a venue for patent litigation. These cases involved other plaintiffs such as Maxell, Anonymous Media Research Holdings (AMRH), Pictiva Displays, Netlist, Lepton Computing, and Tau Ceti Ventures LLC, and covered various technologies including device unlocking, media consumption measurement, OLED technology, memory modules, foldable phone technology, display technologies, and wireless proximity. However, these articles are not directly about the PayGeo case.

Sources

• rpxcorp.com
• greyb.com
• pacermonitor.com
• justia.com

PayGeo, LLC is represented by a team of experienced patent litigators from multiple firms.

Lead Counsel:

• Eric J. Enger (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP, Houston, TX
  • Experience: Eric Enger focuses on patent litigation and post-grant challenges at the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He has experience prosecuting and defending high-tech companies in multi-patent litigation across the United States and has also litigated trade secret misappropriation cases. He holds a Bachelor of Science in electrical engineering. He has been recognized by IAM Patent 1000 and selected as a Texas Super Lawyer.

Of Counsel / Additional Counsel:

• Paul J. Andre

  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Redwood Shores, CA
  • Experience: Mr. Andre has appeared as counsel for PayGeo, LLC in this case.

• Lisa Kobialka

  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Redwood Shores, CA
  • Experience: Ms. Kobialka has appeared as counsel for PayGeo, LLC.

• James Hannah

  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Redwood Shores, CA
  • Experience: Mr. Hannah has appeared as counsel for PayGeo, LLC in both the district court case and related IPR proceedings.

• Christina Finn

  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP, Redwood Shores, CA
  • Experience: Ms. Finn has participated in conferences and filings on behalf of PayGeo, LLC.

Local Counsel (Eastern District of Texas):

• Elizabeth L. DeRieux

  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Gladewater, TX
  • Experience: Ms. DeRieux is a listed attorney for PayGeo, LLC.

• J. Mark Mann (likely local counsel given location and firm type)

  • Firm: Mann Tindel Thompson, Tyler, TX (formerly Mann Law Group)
  • Experience: J. Mark Mann's practice areas include intellectual property litigation and he is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. His firm, Mann Tindel Thompson, handles complex civil litigation, including patent litigation. Note: There appears to be another attorney named Philip P. Mann associated with "Mann Law Group" with extensive patent litigation experience, but J. Mark Mann is more clearly tied to local counsel activities in East Texas.

• T. John Ward Jr. (of counsel to a firm that practices in the Eastern District of Texas, potentially acting as local counsel or strategic advisor).

  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill), Longview, TX
  • Experience: T. John Ward Jr. is a highly experienced trial attorney and former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, known for presiding over a significant number of intellectual property cases. His litigation practice focuses on patent and complex commercial cases, and he also conducts mock trials and Markman hearings for patent cases. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Eastern District of Texas.

• D. Scot Malouf (potentially involved as local counsel, though specific role for PayGeo isn't definitively stated in accessible records).

  • Firm: The Law Offices of Stephen F. Malouf, P.C. / Malouf & Nockels, Dallas, TX (Stephen F. Malouf is listed as a recipient of a State Bar of Texas award; D. Scot Malouf's full name is Stephen F. Malouf).
  • Experience: D. Scot Malouf (Stephen F. Malouf) has experience in commercial litigation, including intellectual property. He is admitted to practice in the Eastern District of Texas.

No in-house counsel for PayGeo, LLC were identified through the search. PayGeo, LLC appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE).

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are represented by both in-house counsel and outside counsel from several law firms.

In-House Counsel for Samsung:

• Matthew Bathon
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics
  • Location: (Not specified, but coordinates ITC and district court dockets)
  • Note: Coordinates Samsung's ITC and district court dockets and has prior experience as a partner at Steptoe LLP, focusing on Section 337 investigations before the ITC and IP disputes in district courts.
• Tim Jezek
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics America
  • Location: (Not specified, but focuses on IP litigation)
  • Note: Focuses on IP litigation and related policy issues, with over two decades of experience in both in-house and law firm settings.
• Phillip Lee
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics US IP Center
  • Location: (Not specified, but manages a docket of patent cases with outside counsel)
  • Note: Veteran litigator with experience in patent litigation, patent prosecution, and licensing across various technologies. Has appeared before federal district courts, the PTAB, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit.

Outside Counsel for Samsung:

While specific appearances for the district court case (2:25-cv-00334) were not explicitly found in the search results, several attorneys from O'Melveny & Myers LLP are listed as counsel for Samsung in related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings against PayGeo, LLC patents, and are likely involved in the district court litigation.

• William M. Fink
  • Role: Lead Counsel (in IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Location: Washington, DC
  • Note: Listed as Lead Counsel for Samsung in IPR proceedings against PayGeo patents.
• Brian Cook
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Listed as Back-Up Counsel for Samsung in IPR proceedings against PayGeo patents.
• Nicholas Whilt
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Listed as Back-Up Counsel for Samsung in IPR proceedings against PayGeo patents.
• Benjamin Haber
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Listed as Back-Up Counsel for Samsung in IPR proceedings against PayGeo patents.
• Caitlin Hogan
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Location: New York, NY
  • Note: Listed as Back-Up Counsel for Samsung in IPR proceedings against PayGeo patents.
• Raj Paul
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel (in IPR proceedings)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP
  • Location: Washington, DC
  • Note: Listed as Back-Up Counsel for Samsung in IPR proceedings against PayGeo patents.

It is also worth noting that Samsung has been represented by other prominent firms in past patent litigation, such as Kirkland & Ellis and Gillam & Smith in the Staton Techiya and Synergy IP v Samsung Electronics case, and White & Case LLP in other patent matters.