RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

RFCyber Corp., identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or patent holding entity specializing in NFC and smart-card technology, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. The defendants, Samsung Electronics, are a global technology conglomerate manufacturing and selling a wide range of consumer electronics. The core of the dispute centers on allegations that Samsung's mobile payment service, Samsung Pay, along with approximately 40 smartphone models and 11 wearable gadgets released since 2015, infringe upon RFCyber's intellectual property. The accused technology broadly concerns electronic wallets for non-contact payments via smartphones and related mobile near field communication (NFC) services.

The litigation, filed on October 16, 2020, in the Eastern District of Texas, asserts U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046, among others. U.S. Patent No. 10,600,046 generally describes a system and method for facilitating secure transactions using a mobile device, particularly focusing on NFC capabilities for electronic payments. The case is assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, with Judge Roy S. Payne as the referred judge. The Eastern District of Texas remains a highly favored venue for patent plaintiffs due to its reputation for efficient dockets, judge experience in patent cases, and a history of plaintiff-friendly outcomes, a trend that has seen a resurgence in recent years.

This case is notable within the landscape of patent litigation due to RFCyber Corp.'s pattern of asserting its mobile payment patents against major technology companies; the company has also filed similar lawsuits against LG Electronics and Google. The dispute highlights common NPE assertion strategies in the lucrative mobile payment and NFC technology sectors. Furthermore, Samsung has responded by filing petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against RFCyber's patents with the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a common tactic by defendants to challenge patent validity in parallel administrative proceedings.

RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.: Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Case Caption: RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Case Number: 2:20-cv-00335
Court: Texas Eastern District Court
Filed: 2020-10-16
Status: Terminated (as of March 15, 2023)
Plaintiff(s): RFCyber Corp.
Defendant(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Patents at issue: 10600046, 8,118,218, 8,448,855, 9,189,787, 9,240,009

Chronological Legal Developments:

2020-10-16: Case Filing & Initial Pleadings
RFCyber Corp. filed a complaint for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,118,218, 8,448,855, 9,189,787, 9,240,009, and 10,600,046, among others.

2021-11-17: Motion Practice (Omnibus Motions in Limine)
A court record from November 17, 2021, indicates the filing of "Omnibus Motions In Limine" in this case, suggesting the litigation was actively proceeding through pre-trial stages.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

2021-05-18: IPR Filing (IPR2021-00954)
Google LLC initiated an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2021-00954) against RFCyber Corp. on May 18, 2021. This IPR challenges claims of U.S. Patent 10,600,046, which is also a patent-in-suit in the district court case against Samsung. The district court case 2:20-cv-00335 is listed as a related proceeding in the IPR. The outcome of this IPR is not yet available in the provided search results.

2021: Related PGR Proceeding (PGR2021-00028)
Another related post-grant review (PGR2021-00028) concerning the '046 patent was noted in preliminary invalidity contentions filed by Apple in a separate litigation, indicating challenges to the patent's validity in the USPTO. The outcome of this PGR proceeding is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results.

2023-03-15: Case Termination
The district court case RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:20-cv-00335) was terminated as of March 15, 2023. The specific reason and a precise order or docket entry detailing this termination are not explicitly provided in the search results, but the subsequent unpatentability of a key patent in a related case offers a strong indication.

2025-12-03: Federal Circuit Unpatentability Affirmance (Related Case)
In a separate but related case, RFCyber Corp. v. Apple Inc. (Federal Circuit Case No. 24-1612), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of U.S. Patent 10,600,046B2 on December 3, 2025. This decision, issued via a Rule 36 judgment, effectively extinguished the enforceability of the '046 patent. This outcome, making a key patent in the Samsung litigation unpatentable, likely played a significant role in the termination of the RFCyber v. Samsung case. The affirmance indicates that the appellate panel found no reversible error in a prior tribunal's finding of unpatentability.

Outcome:
The patent infringement litigation RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-00335) in the Eastern District of Texas was terminated as of March 15, 2023. While the specific court order detailing the termination reason for this case is not explicitly available, the subsequent affirmation of unpatentability of U.S. Patent 10,600,046 by the Federal Circuit in a parallel case against Apple Inc. on December 3, 2025, strongly suggests that the patent's invalidity was a decisive factor leading to the closure of the Samsung litigation. Prior to its termination, the case saw at least one substantive motion in limine. There is no public record of a trial, verdict, or post-trial motions in this specific case before its termination. The impact of IPR2021-00954 and PGR2021-00028 on this specific case, beyond their existence and relation to the '046 patent, is not explicitly detailed in the provided information.

Despite extensive searching for news and analysis specifically covering RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Case No. 2:20-cv-00335), direct press coverage of this particular case is limited. Most search results either reference the case in passing as a related proceeding in PTAB filings or discuss other patent litigation involving Samsung or RFCyber Corp. without delving into the specifics of this lawsuit.

One article from Business Korea on June 17, 2021, reported that Samsung Electronics filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against RFCyber's mobile payment patents with the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This article states that RFCyber Corp. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas in October 2020, alleging that Samsung Pay and approximately 40 smartphone models and 11 wearable gadgets infringed five of its patents concerning electronic wallets for non-contact payments through smartphones. The article also notes that Google LLC had filed an IPR petition against RFCyber the month prior to Samsung's filing. A similar report from IPWatchdog.com on June 17, 2021, mentions Samsung filing an IPR against RFCyber Corp..

The termination of the district court case on March 15, 2023, and the subsequent Federal Circuit affirmance of unpatentability for U.S. Patent 10,600,046 in a related case against Apple in December 2025, appear to have been significant legal developments that influenced the outcome. However, no specific news articles were found directly detailing the reason for the termination of this specific RFCyber v. Samsung case (2:20-cv-00335) or discussing any settlement terms or damages awarded. The available news coverage primarily focuses on the initiation of the lawsuit and parallel PTAB challenges.

Sources

• businesskorea.co.kr
• ipwatchdog.com

The plaintiff, RFCyber Corp., is represented by several attorneys, primarily from Texas-based firms known for their patent litigation work in the Eastern District of Texas.

Here is the identified counsel for RFCyber Corp.:

• Jeffrey S. Ward (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP (Chicago, IL, based on search results for Jeffrey S. Ward, though specific office for this case is not explicitly stated). Another search result lists Green, Griffith & Borg-Breen LLP, but this is less recent.
  • Experience Note: Jeffrey S. Ward is a registered patent attorney with over four decades of experience, focusing on patent litigation and strategic counseling across various industries, including electrical engineering. He has served as lead counsel in numerous patent appeals, including arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has also been recognized in "The Best Lawyers in America" and by IAM Patent 1000 for litigation.

• Johnny Ward (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX). As of October 1, 2024, Johnny Ward, along with Wesley Hill and Bruce Smith, was expected to end their trial practices, with the remaining firm members continuing under the name Miller Fair Henry, and Johnny Ward remaining Of Counsel. His current firm for active litigation may be his personal law office, Law Office of T. John Ward, Jr., P.C..
  • Experience Note: Johnny Ward is a highly experienced intellectual property litigation attorney in the Eastern District of Texas, selected to Super Lawyers from 2003-2026. He has appeared as an attorney of record in over 500 patent infringement cases and tried close to 60 cases to a jury verdict. Ward, Smith & Hill has a national reputation in high-stakes claims, including intellectual property law, and has been recognized by IAM Patent 1000 for understanding the Eastern District of Texas judges. He was also formerly Of Counsel and a U.S. District Court Judge.

• Wesley Hill (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX). As of October 1, 2024, Wesley Hill was expected to end his trial practice, with the remaining firm members continuing under the name Miller Fair Henry.
  • Experience Note: Wesley Hill is known for his courtroom success in patent cases and has successfully tried numerous cases to verdict, including more than a dozen patent infringement trials. He has been recognized in "Texas Rising Stars" and "The Best Lawyers in America" for intellectual property and patent litigation.

• Andrea Fair (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX). As of October 1, 2024, she became a name partner in the firm, which continued under the name Miller Fair Henry.
  • Experience Note: Andrea Fair has garnered a national reputation for securing multi-million dollar verdicts in intellectual property and patent cases, including an $847 million result against Verizon and a $121.95 million jury verdict against Amazon. She has been listed in "Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch" for intellectual property litigation for five consecutive years and recognized by "Texas Super Lawyers".

• Charles Everingham IV (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX). He remained Of Counsel with the firm after the name change to Miller Fair Henry.
  • Experience Note: Charles Everingham IV is a former magistrate judge recognized for his work in intellectual property and patent litigation. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement cases across various industries, including consumer electronics and telecommunications.

It's important to note that a recent search for RFCyber Corp.'s representation in a different, more recent case (RFCyber Corp. v. Kroger Co., 2:24-cv-00548) indicates that Fabricant LLP and Truelove Law Firm are representing RFCyber, Corp., with attorneys such as Alfred Ross Fabricant, Jacob Daniel Ostling, Justin Kurt Truelove, Peter Lambrianakos, Richard Matthew Cowell, and Vincent J. Rubino III. However, the case RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (2:20-cv-00335) has been running since 2020, and the counsel identified from the Ward, Smith & Hill firm are well-established in the Eastern District of Texas for patent cases. The initial complaint for this case, filed October 16, 2020, also listed multiple patents in suit, not just 10600046, including 8,118,218, 8,448,855, 9,189,787, and 9,240,009. While some patent cases for RFCyber have been terminated, including one in March 2023 that listed patents 8,118,218, 9,240,009, 10,600,046, 9,189,787, and 8,448,855, the status of this specific case against Samsung is "Litigation". Due to the potential for changes in representation over time in a lengthy litigation, a direct PACER search for the current counsel list would provide the most up-to-date information. Without direct PACER access, the information regarding Ward, Smith & Hill and its attorneys is based on their known involvement in similar cases and their firm's reputation in the Eastern District of Texas.

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are represented by attorneys from Fish & Richardson P.C. and Ballard Spahr LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel of record for the defendants:

Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Joseph V. Colaianni (Lead Counsel) - Principal in the Washington, DC office. Mr. Colaianni has extensive experience in Section 337 investigations at the ITC and patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts, including jury and bench trials. He previously served as a patent examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. His experience includes representing Samsung in patent infringement actions related to wireless and mobile electronic communications technology, which were successfully resolved via settlement.
• Michael McKeon (Counsel) - Principal in the Washington, DC office. Mr. McKeon was part of the Fish & Richardson team that secured a Federal Circuit reversal on behalf of Samsung in a patent infringement dispute with Rain Computing Inc. over software application delivery technology.
• Christopher Dryer (Counsel) - Also part of the Fish & Richardson team that represented Samsung in the Rain Computing Inc. case.
• Jeffrey A. Shneidman (Counsel) - Based in the Boston office. Mr. Shneidman is listed as counsel of record for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in a separate Supreme Court matter.

Ballard Spahr LLP

• Samuel J. Erlanger (Counsel) - Associate in the New York office and a registered patent attorney. His practice focuses on IP litigation, covering all aspects of patent litigation before federal district courts and the International Trade Commission. He has specific experience in patent litigation involving mobile payment software against consumer electronics companies, including representing a mobile payments technology company in RFCyber Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.