Samsung Electronics America Inc et al. v. Network 1 Technologies Inc

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2026-00117, involves Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (collectively, "Samsung") as the petitioners, challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,166,869, owned by Network 1 Technologies Inc. Samsung is a global operating company renowned for its consumer electronics, mobile devices, and enterprise solutions, including a wide array of smartphones, TVs, and home appliances. In contrast, Network 1 Technologies Inc. is a publicly traded Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) that specializes in the acquisition, development, licensing, and monetization of intellectual property assets, often through litigation. The company's strategy focuses on acquiring high-quality patents to generate licensing revenues.

The IPR is a defensive action stemming from an underlying patent infringement lawsuit filed by Network 1 against Samsung in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (likely case 2:25-cv-00667). In this district court case, Network 1 alleges that Samsung's mobile devices, including its Galaxy smartphones, watches, and tablets, infringe U.S. Patent No. 12,166,869 and five other patents. These "Accused Products" are alleged to infringe by supporting certain eSIM (embedded Subscriber Identification Module) and 5G technologies, operating consistent with GSMA and ETSI industry standards. U.S. Patent No. 12,166,869 is part of Network 1's M2M/IoT patent portfolio, which generally relates to enabling technology for authenticating and using eSIM technology in Internet of Things (IoT), Machine-to-Machine, and other mobile devices, as well as 5G network authentication.

The procedural posture of this case is unique because, as of May 6, 2026, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided not to institute the IPR on the merits. This non-institution decision applies not only to IPR2026-00117 but to all six IPR petitions filed by Samsung challenging the patents asserted by Network 1 in the Eastern District of Texas litigation. The Eastern District of Texas is a prominent venue for patent litigation, often favored by patent owners. The PTAB's decision is notable as it removes a significant validity challenge for Network 1's patents, strengthening its position in the ongoing district court infringement suit. This pattern of NPEs asserting patents related to fundamental mobile and IoT technologies like eSIM and 5G, coupled with a successful defense against IPR challenges, highlights the persistent tension between patent holders and implementing companies in critical industry sectors.

The key legal developments and outcome for the patent infringement litigation, Network 1 Technologies Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:25-cv-00667-JRG), are as follows:

Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Network 1 Technologies Inc. filed its initial Complaint for Patent Infringement against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on June 27, 2025.
• Amended Complaint: Network 1 filed an Amended Complaint on October 22, 2025, which remains the operative pleading in the case.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Focus Asserted Patent Claims: Samsung filed an "Opposed Motion to Focus Asserted Patent Claims" on January 13, 2026.
• Denial of Motion to Focus: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied Samsung's motion to focus asserted patent claims without prejudice on April 23, 2026.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The court has scheduled the Markman hearing for December 14, 2026. The claim construction process is set to begin on August 10, 2026.

4. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• Samsung filed six Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions challenging the patents asserted by Network 1, including IPR2026-00117 for U.S. Patent No. 12,166,869.
• Non-Institution on Merits: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided not to institute IPR2026-00117, along with all five other IPR petitions filed by Samsung, on the merits as of May 6, 2026. This decision removes a significant validity challenge for Network 1's patents and strengthens its position in the ongoing district court infringement suit. The PTAB's decision not to institute IPRs can be influenced by various factors, including the proximity of a district court trial date, the overlap of parties and issues, and the investment already made in the district court proceedings. The Director of the USPTO, John Squires, has been individually leading the screening of petitions for institution decisions since October 2025, focusing on aspects like who is filing, consistency of positions across forums, and efficient use of agency resources.

5. Present Posture:

• The district court litigation is ongoing, with a Markman hearing scheduled for December 14, 2026, and the claim construction process set to commence on August 10, 2026. The non-institution of the parallel IPRs means that the validity challenges to Network 1's patents will primarily be handled within the district court litigation.

The plaintiff in this case, Network 1 Technologies Inc., is represented by several law firms and attorneys in the underlying district court litigation (2:25-cv-00667) in the Eastern District of Texas. While the IPR (IPR2026-00117) was filed by Samsung, the request is for the counsel representing the plaintiff in the infringement case.

Based on available information for the district court case Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al (2:25-cv-00667), the following attorneys and firms are representing Network 1 Technologies Inc. (the plaintiff in the patent infringement case):

Lead Counsel & Firms:

• Amir H. Alavi (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Alavi & Anaipakos is a prominent intellectual property litigation firm.

• Demetrios Anaipakos (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Co-founder of Alavi & Anaipakos, experienced in patent litigation.

• Masood Anjom

  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC (Houston, TX)

• Steven Thomas Jugle

  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC (Houston, TX)

• Robert Allan Bullwinkel

  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Heim, Payne & Chorush is a well-known patent litigation firm.

• William Brown Collier, Jr.

  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP (Houston, TX)

• Eric James Enger

  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP (Houston, TX)

• Michael F Heim

  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP (Houston, TX)

• Connie Flores Jones

  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC (Houston, TX)

• Christopher Ryan Pinckney

  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC (Houston, TX)

• Claire Abernathy Henry

  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Miller Fair Henry PLLC is a Texas-based firm with experience in patent litigation, often serving as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas. Andrea Fair, also from Miller Fair Henry, has been noted in other Samsung patent cases for her work on trial teams.

In the patent infringement case, Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., filed in the Eastern District of Texas (2:25-cv-00667), Network 1 Technologies Inc. is represented by several firms and attorneys.

Counsel of record for Network 1 Technologies Inc. includes:

• Amir H. Alavi - Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Experience: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC is noted for its work in patent litigation.
• Demetrios Anaipakos - Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC, Houston, Texas.
  • Experience: Anaipakos is a named partner in a firm specializing in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.
• Masood Anjom
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC.
• Steven Thomas Jugle
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC.
• Connie Flores Jones
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC.
• Christopher Ryan Pinckney
  • Firm: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC.
• Robert Allan Bullwinkel
  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP.
• William Brown Collier, Jr.
  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP.
• Eric James Enger
  • Firm: Heim Payne & Chorush LLP.
• Michael F. Heim
  • Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP.
• Claire Abernathy Henry
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC.