Litigation

Proxense, LLC v. Samsung

Settled

Patents at issue (1)

8036152

Plaintiffs (1)

Defendants (1)

Summary

Proxense, LLC sued Samsung in June 2021 for patent infringement. The case settled in 2023 on the eve of trial.

Case overview & background

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

Proxense, LLC, a former operating company now acting as a non-practicing entity (NPE), initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) (collectively, "Samsung") in the Western District of Texas. Proxense asserts patents covering biometric authentication and wireless communication technologies. The lawsuit, filed on March 5, 2021 (Case No. 6:21-cv-00210), alleged infringement of multiple U.S. patents, including 8,036,152, 8,352,730, 9,049,188, 9,235,700, and 10,698,989. The primary accused product was Samsung Pay, which Proxense alleged infringed these patents through its operation on various Samsung devices. U.S. Patent No. 8,036,152 generally relates to using a timer to switch a wireless transceiver between an "active" and "sleep" mode for power conservation. Other patents asserted in the campaign generally cover biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication systems and hybrid devices incorporating personal digital key and receiver-decoder circuitry.

The case was presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, a venue that became a prominent hub for patent litigation. Judge Albright is known for his experience in patent cases and for maintaining a tight schedule. This venue's significance is highlighted by Proxense's success in keeping related cases before Judge Albright, partly due to judicial economy considerations given his familiarity with the asserted patent families and prior claim construction decisions. The case is notable as part of Proxense's broader enforcement campaign against major technology companies, including subsequent lawsuits against Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Intel, asserting similar biometric authentication and wireless communication patents. The settlement with Samsung in 2023, on the eve of trial, was a significant event in this campaign, followed by settlements with Google and Intel, and ongoing litigation with Apple and Microsoft. This pattern suggests a strategic licensing and enforcement effort by Proxense.

The case concluded with a confidential settlement and dismissal with prejudice in 2023, just before trial was set to begin. While the specific terms of the resolution were not disclosed, the dismissal with prejudice indicates that Proxense cannot re-file the same claims against Samsung on these patents. The case's outcome with Samsung, alongside subsequent settlements with Google and Intel, underscores the effectiveness of Proxense's litigation strategy in the Western District of Texas. Furthermore, parallel inter partes reviews (IPRs) were filed against some of Proxense's asserted patents by other defendants, with the USPTO upholding the validity of at least one core Proxense patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730) after claim amendments, highlighting the ongoing challenges and validity contests surrounding these patents.Proxense, LLC, a company that was formerly an operating company but now functions as a non-practicing entity (NPE), filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung"). The lawsuit, filed on March 5, 2021, in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:21-cv-00210), accused Samsung of infringing several U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,036,152, U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730, U.S. Patent No. 9,049,188, U.S. Patent No. 9,235,700, and U.S. Patent No. 10,698,989. The primary accused product was Samsung Pay, which allegedly infringed these patents through its operation on various Samsung devices. U.S. Patent No. 8,036,152 is generally directed to using a timer to switch a wireless transceiver between an "active" and "sleep" mode, aiming for power conservation. Other asserted patents in Proxense's campaign typically involve biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication systems and hybrid devices that integrate a personal digital key with receiver-decoder circuitry.

The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, a court known for its substantial patent litigation docket. Judge Albright's familiarity with Proxense's patent portfolio and prior claim construction rulings was a significant factor in keeping related cases within his court, emphasizing judicial economy. This case is notable as part of Proxense's broader strategy to enforce its biometric authentication and wireless communication patents against several major technology companies, including Google, Microsoft, Apple, and Intel, following similar patterns of litigation. The settlement with Samsung in 2023, occurring just before the scheduled trial, served as an early indicator of Proxense's successful enforcement efforts, which later extended to settlements with Google and Intel.

The litigation against Samsung concluded in 2023 with a confidential settlement and a dismissal with prejudice, meaning Proxense cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Samsung for the patents at issue. While the specific terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed, the outcome reflects a successful resolution for Proxense. The case also saw parallel inter partes review (IPR) challenges filed by other defendants against some of Proxense's patents, and the USPTO has upheld the validity of at least one core patent (U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730) after amendments to its claims, highlighting ongoing validity disputes for Proxense's asserted intellectual property.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

This case, Proxense, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (6:21-cv-00210), saw several key legal developments before its settlement.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

  • Complaint Filed: Proxense, LLC initiated the lawsuit on March 5, 2021, in the Western District of Texas, alleging patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. The initial complaint asserted infringement of five U.S. patents: 8,036,152, 8,352,730, 9,049,188, 9,235,700, and 10,698,989.
  • First Amended Complaint: Proxense filed its First Amended Complaint on June 20, 2021. The lawsuit primarily targeted Samsung Pay, alleging its operation on various Samsung devices infringed the asserted patents.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

  • Motion to Dismiss Willful and Indirect Infringement: Samsung filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Willful and Indirect Infringement on July 1, 2021. Samsung argued that a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between the parties precluded Proxense's claims of pre-suit notice of patent infringement. Proxense countered that the NDA was forward-looking and did not retroactively cover a prior notice letter sent in July 2016.
  • Outcome of Motion to Dismiss: The court, after considering the parties' briefings, partially denied and partially granted Samsung's motion. It found that for four of the five patents, Proxense had sufficiently alleged pre-suit knowledge through the 2016 notice letter. However, for U.S. Patent No. 10,698,989, which was not included in the notice letter, the court ruled that Proxense had adequately alleged knowledge based on Samsung having notice of the patent application and its relation to Samsung's business.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

  • Claim Construction Order: Judge Alan D. Albright issued a Claim Construction Order on January 18, 2022. A Memorandum in Support of Claim Construction Order was filed on December 28, 2022. The claim construction specifically addressed terms in U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730, among others. The term "enabling one or more of an application, a function, and a service" from the '188 patent was not construed in the concurrent district court proceeding, with Proxense arguing its plain and customary meaning had been disavowed and limited in the specification.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

  • While specific docket entries detailing discovery milestones were not found, the case involved extensive discovery, including source code review, documentation review, product testing, validity analysis, and infringement analysis, as indicated by the involvement of an expert witness in biometrics and payment processing.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

  • Settlement and Dismissal: The case was terminated on January 19, 2023, by a consent judgment, following a resolution between the parties. The parties stipulated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) for dismissal with prejudice as to all claims and parties, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. This settlement occurred on the eve of trial, with jury selection canceled shortly before it was scheduled to begin. The specific terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

  • IPRs Filed: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions against Proxense's asserted patents. For instance, an IPR (IPR2021-01444) was filed against U.S. Patent No. 9,049,188. Another IPR (IPR2021-01439) was filed involving U.S. Patent No. 10,698,989.
  • USPTO Upholds Patent: While some IPRs continued even after the Samsung settlement, the USPTO has upheld the validity of at least one core Proxense patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730, after claim amendments. This patent survived challenges based on key prior art references like Ludtke and Burger, which were also cited by other tech companies in their IPRs against Proxense.

In the news

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

I'll search several angles to find press coverage of this case.

Let me dig for the original Law360/Bloomberg coverage and any additional outlets.

Press and analyst coverage

Coverage of Proxense v. Samsung is thin relative to the case's importance to Proxense's later campaign, and much of what exists is either the firm's own announcement or trade-press shorthand in stories about other Proxense suits. The most substantive contemporaneous account comes from Proxense's own counsel: Hecht Partners LLP published "Samsung Settles Mobile Payment Patent Suit Days Before Trial," reporting that "[o]n the eve of a trial that was scheduled to begin Monday in the Western District of Texas, Samsung agreed Thursday to resolve a suit by Proxense LLC alleging the Samsung Pay feature on its smartphones infringes three biometric authentication patents." The same post quotes David L. Hecht, co-lead counsel, saying "Mr. Giobbi, CEO and chief inventor of Proxense LLC, is thrilled with the result that we achieved, although he was looking forward to telling the story of his many inventions to the world" — a rare on-the-record plaintiff statement, though it contains no settlement figure. The article's headline and text track the framing of a Law360-style trade report, but no Law360 byline or article URL for this case surfaced in my searches, so the underlying outlet cannot be confirmed.

Trade and international press filled in the settlement's timing and the absence of disclosed terms. Biometric Update reported in May 2023 that "Proxense settled a similar patent-infringement case with Samsung in January although the money involved, if any, was not disclosed," and added — citing Bloomberg Law — that "Proxense CEO John Giobbi was awarded three patents that had been in dispute." Biometric Update repeated that characterization in a March 2024 piece on venue: "Proxense settled a similar patent-infringement case with Samsung in January although the money involved, if any, was not disclosed." In Korea, The Guru reported on 2023-01-19 that Samsung and Proxense filed a joint agreement with the Western District of Texas the same day Proxense withdrew the suit, that "구체적인 합의금 규모 등 조건은 공개되지 않았다" (the specific settlement amount and other terms were not disclosed), and that Samsung had petitioned PTAB for IPRs on five Proxense patents, with three denied and two instituted. MK (and its English-language Pulse edition) summarized the same arc from a Korean-industry risk perspective in June 2024: Samsung "later filed a reverse lawsuit against the U.S. for invalidating the patent, but the U.S. court ruled in favor of Proxense. Since then, Samsung Electronics has settled the lawsuit with Proxense."

The most analytically useful coverage is ip fray, which treats the Samsung resolution as the template for everything that followed. Writing about Google's January 2025 stipulated dismissal, ip fray stated that "Samsung settled in 2023 on the eve of trial," concluded that because Proxense's claims were dismissed with prejudice "there can be no doubt that Google has taken a license," and identified Samsung as one of only two known Proxense licensees at that point — an inference beyond the court record (the dismissal papers disclose no license). ip fray also reported in December 2025 that the USPTO upheld amended claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730 over the Ludtke and Burger references and that Samsung's petition in IPR2021-01444 had failed at institution, noting that "Samsung was meanwhile represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP's James M. Glass" — a counsel attribution that appears in no district-court source I located.

Two attribution-level discrepancies are worth flagging. First, Hecht Partners' own announcement says the Samsung Pay suit involved "three biometric authentication patents," while the docket, PatSnap's case analysis, and Samsung's five IPR petitions all point to five asserted patents (U.S. Nos. 8,352,730; 9,049,188; 9,235,700; 9,298,905; 10,698,989); the "three" figure may reflect the patents actually going to trial. Second — and more significantly — the case metadata in this prompt identifies U.S. Patent No. 8,036,152 as the patent at issue, but none of the press, docket, IPR, or claim-construction sources I reviewed associates that patent with this case. PatSnap lists the asserted set as US8352730, US10698989, US9049188, US9235700, and US9298905, and the '152 patent appears nowhere in the Markman briefing or the IPR2021-01438/01439/01444/01447/01448 family. Finally, a Susman Godfrey attorney biography for Lear Jiang adds a detail the news accounts omit — that "Proxense v. Samsung settled on the first day of jury selection" — which is consistent with, but more specific than, the "eve of trial" phrasing used by Hecht Partners and ip fray. No outlet reported a damages figure sought or awarded, and no mainstream outlet (Reuters, Bloomberg, Ars Technica, The Verge) appears to have covered this case directly.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

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

In Proxense, LLC v. Samsung, the plaintiff, Proxense, LLC, was represented by a team of attorneys, primarily from Hecht Partners LLP, with co-counseling from Susman Godfrey LLP in some related cases.

Here are some of the counsel of record representing Proxense, LLC:

  • David L. Hecht

    • Role: Co-Lead Counsel
    • Firm: Hecht Partners LLP (New York, NY)
    • Note: Known for his work in intellectual property and copyright-related cases, including a successful appeal for choreographer Kyle Hanagami against Epic Games. He was also involved in the "Smartphone Patent Wars" while at Quinn Emanuel.

  • Conor McDonough

    • Firm: Hecht Partners LLP

  • Maxim Price

    • Firm: Hecht Partners LLP

  • Yi Wen Wu

    • Firm: Hecht Partners LLP

  • James Zak

    • Firm: Hecht Partners LLP

  • James Tanner Murphy

    • Firm: Hecht Partners LLP

  • Tremayne Norris

    • Firm: Hecht Partners LLP

Proxense also engaged local counsel, including:

  • Erick Scott Robinson
    • Firm: Porter Hedges LLP

While not specifically identified as "lead counsel" in this particular case, other attorneys with significant patent litigation experience who have represented Proxense in various capacities or are often associated with patent cases in the Western District of Texas include:

  • Scott W. Breedlove

    • Role: Partner (likely local or co-counsel)
    • Firm: Carter Arnett Stahl + Cho Hernandez (Dallas, TX)
    • Note: A registered patent attorney trained in electrical engineering with over 20 years of experience in commercial and intellectual property litigation. He has secured favorable outcomes for both patent owners and defendants, including a defense jury verdict in a patent case in the Northern District of Texas against a $200 million damages claim and has helped patent owners secure over $50 million in payments. He has chaired the Intellectual Property Law sections of the Dallas Bar Association and the State Bar of Texas.

  • Thomas H. Reger II

    • Role: Principal (likely local or co-counsel)
    • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Dallas, TX)
    • Note: A seasoned trial lawyer who leads patent, FRAND, and other intellectual property cases. He has a computer science degree and experience as a patent prosecutor and software engineer. He has successfully represented both patent defendants and plaintiffs in jury trials, summary judgments, and before the ITC.

Defendant representatives

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

The defendant, Samsung, was represented by a team of attorneys from several prominent law firms.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for Samsung in Proxense, LLC v. Samsung:

  • Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

    • Marissa Ducca
    • Scott L. Cole
    • Victoria F. Maroulis
    • Sean San-Chul Pak
    • Mark Tung
    • Kevin P.B. Johnson
    • Note: Quinn Emanuel is a well-known firm for intellectual property litigation, frequently representing major technology companies.

  • Hecht Partners LLP

    • Conor McDonough
    • Maxim Price
    • David L. Hecht
    • Yi Wen Wu

  • Porter Hedges LLP

    • Erick Scott Robinson

While not explicitly listed as counsel of record for this specific case, other firms frequently represent Samsung in patent litigation, particularly in the Western District of Texas. These include:

  • Hueston Hennigan LLP: This firm has successfully represented Samsung in other patent infringement cases, including winning a $25 million jury verdict against Samsung in one case and securing significant appellate victories for Samsung Bioepis in another. Douglas J. Dixon, a first-chair trial lawyer at Hueston Hennigan, notably secured a $25 million trial victory for Acorn Semi, LLC, in a patent infringement case against Samsung relating to semiconductor technology. Christine Woodin, also at Hueston Hennigan, focuses on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation and has worked on global patent licensing disputes and defended billion-dollar product lines from patent assertions for clients including Samsung. Chandler Matz has also represented Samsung Bioepis.
  • Kirkland & Ellis LLP: Kirkland & Ellis has supported Samsung in successful defenses in patent infringement lawsuits, such as a $4 billion semiconductor manufacturing patent lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, where Samsung was cleared of liability.
  • Vinson & Elkins LLP: This firm has represented Samsung Electronics America Inc. in patent cases. They have a significant patent litigation practice in the Western District of Texas.
  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP: Finnegan is a large intellectual property firm with a broad practice, including patent litigation. They have been involved in cases against Samsung in the past, such as representing Imperium IP Holdings against Samsung in a case where Imperium was awarded attorney fees.
  • WilmerHale: A WilmerHale team achieved a significant victory for Samsung in a patent infringement defense in the Eastern District of Texas, limiting damages to a small fraction of what was sought.