Litigation

Samsung Electronics America Inc. v. Massively Broadband LLC

Discretionary Denial

IPR2026-00086

Filed
2025-10-24
Terminated
2026-02-10

Patents at issue (1)

8725700PTAB: discretionary denial

Summary

This was a petition for inter partes review challenging US 8,725,700 on grounds of obviousness. The petition was denied by the PTAB on a discretionary basis.

Case overview & background

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

The case IPR2026-00086, [[[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America) Inc](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%20Inc).](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%20Inc.) v. Massively Broadband LLC, involves a petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed by Samsung Electronics America Inc. challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 8,725,700, owned by Massively Broadband LLC.

Samsung Electronics America Inc. (SEA) is a prominent leader in consumer electronics, mobile devices, and enterprise solutions, offering a wide array of products including smartphones, televisions, home appliances, and network systems, as a subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Massively Broadband LLC appears to be a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), as it acquired over 20 U.S. patents from named inventor Theodore S. Rappaport in December 2024 and subsequently initiated patent infringement litigation against Samsung. The patent at issue, US 8,725,700, titled "Clearinghouse System and Method for Enhancing the Quality, Operation and Accessibility of Carrier-Based Networks," broadly relates to a system and method that allows telecommunications carriers to identify and select locations for equipment by directly accessing end-users, while also providing a computerized mechanism for creating an inventory and marketplace for network properties, monitoring quality and performance for wireless communication systems, and delivering localized content.

This IPR was filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on October 24, 2025, and terminated with a discretionary denial on February 10, 2026. The discretionary denial by the PTAB is notable, as it reflects the USPTO's evolving approach to IPR institution, particularly under Director John Squires, who assumed authority over institution decisions in late 2025. Recent trends at the PTAB, including the Squires memo of March 2026, emphasize factors like U.S. manufacturing footprint, settled expectations for older patents, and the stage of parallel district court litigation when deciding whether to institute an IPR. In this specific case, the IPR was filed in the context of an underlying patent infringement lawsuit, Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (Case 2:25-cv-00608), filed on June 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Massively Broadband's lawsuit accused Samsung of infringing a dozen patents from the Rappaport portfolio, categorized as "Intelligent Wireless Broadband Relay Patents," "Smart Antenna Patents," and "Network Monitoring Patents." This IPR is part of Samsung's defense against that litigation, and its discretionary denial highlights the increasing hurdles for petitioners challenging patents at the PTAB, especially when parallel litigation is underway.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

This summary details the key legal developments and outcomes related to the patent infringement litigation involving Massively Broadband LLC and Samsung, focusing on the parallel IPR proceeding, IPR2026-00086, and its related district court case.

Parallel District Court Litigation

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2025-06-06: Massively Broadband LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The case is Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00608.
  • The complaint accused Samsung of infringing a dozen patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,725,700, which were transferred to Massively Broadband LLC from inventor Theodore S. Rappaport in late 2024. The asserted patents were grouped into categories such as "Intelligent Wireless Broadband Relay Patents," "Smart Antenna Patents," and "Network Monitoring Patents."
  • 2025-06-09: Samsung Electronics America, Inc. was served with the complaint.
  • 2025-06-25: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time to respond to the complaint. The motion was granted, extending their deadline to answer or otherwise plead until September 29, 2025.

Counsel:

  • Massively Broadband LLC is represented by counsel from K&L Gates LLP, including Christopher Michael Verdini, Patrick J. McElhinny, and Mark G. Knedeisen.
  • Samsung is represented by attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (including Kevin Hardy, Sean S. Pak, John Thomas McKee, and Matthew D. Robson) and Gillam & Smith, LLP (Melissa Richards Smith).

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding

IPR Filing and Institution Phase:

  • 2025-10-24: Samsung Electronics America Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR2026-00086) challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,725,700, which is also asserted in the parallel district court litigation.
  • The petition alleged that all 16 claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,725,700 were unpatentable as obvious over prior art, specifically citing references from Daley, Aaron, and Scherzer.
  • 2025-12-29: The Patent Owner, Massively Broadband LLC, submitted a request for discretionary denial.
  • 2026-01-29: Samsung filed an opposition to the discretionary denial request, and Massively Broadband filed its preliminary response.

Outcome - Discretionary Denial:

  • 2026-02-10: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Director Discretionary Denial decision, terminating the IPR. The PTAB denied institution of the IPR on a discretionary basis, likely under principles such as those outlined in NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., which consider the status of a parallel district court proceeding when deciding whether to institute an IPR. This IPR was one of several filed by Samsung against patents held by Massively Broadband LLC that were similarly denied institution on discretionary grounds around the same period.

Effect on Litigation:

  • The discretionary denial of IPR2026-00086 means that the validity challenge against U.S. Patent No. 8,725,700 based on the obviousness grounds presented in the IPR will not proceed at the PTAB. Consequently, any validity defenses related to obviousness of this patent in the Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung district court litigation (2:25-cv-00608) would need to be litigated in the district court.
  • As of the current date (2026-05-15), the district court litigation (Case No. 2:25-cv-00608) remains active, with the parties having previously filed motions for extensions regarding discovery and responses. The full docket would need to be consulted for the latest updates on the district court case's posture beyond November 2025.

Plaintiff representatives

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

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00608-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

Framing note (important): The case metadata for this entry is the PTAB proceeding IPR2026-00086, in which the petitioner (plaintiff-side) is Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Massively Broadband is the Patent Owner/respondent — that side was already covered in the preceding "Defendant representatives" section. The "patent infringement case" referenced in this task is the parallel district court action, Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00608-JRG (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap), filed June 6, 2025. In that case the plaintiff is Massively Broadband LLC, so the attorneys below are plaintiff-side counsel. (For completeness, the IPR petitioner-side panel is cross-referenced at the end.)

Lead / national counsel — K&L Gates LLP

Attorney Role Firm & office Note
Patrick J. McElhinny (Reg. No. 46,320) Lead counsel (national) K&L Gates LLP, K&L Gates Center, 210 Sixth Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Listed as plaintiff's attorney on the 2:25-cv-00608 docket; also designated Lead Counsel for Massively Broadband as Patent Owner across the companion Samsung IPRs (e.g., IPR2026-00032, IPR2026-00033, IPR2026-00086).
Mark G. Knedeisen (Reg. No. 42,747) Lead/co-lead counsel K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA Signed the Patent Owner mandatory notices/powers of attorney in the parallel IPRs; consistently paired with McElhinny in the Rappaport-portfolio litigation.
Christopher Michael Verdini Counsel K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA (also appears in filings from the firm's San Francisco office) IP trial lawyer; firm bio credits him with a lead pretrial/trial role in a patent case yielding a $1.17 billion verdict (2012) — the firm does not name the client, but press reporting identifies that verdict as Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Group (W.D. Pa.) (my identification, not confirmed by the firm bio). Also represented the Regents of the University of Minnesota as plaintiff in Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. LSI Corp. (N.D. Cal.).
Anna Shabalov Counsel K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA Listed among plaintiff's attorneys on the 2:25-cv-00608 docket; has appeared as K&L Gates backup counsel in patent litigation/IPR matters for the same client group.
Rachel Ellenberger Counsel (associate/other) K&L Gates LLP, Pittsburgh, PA Listed among plaintiff's attorneys for 2:25-cv-00608; I could not independently verify her specific docket filings or bar admission details from a primary source.

Sources: UniCourt party/attorney listing for 2:25-cv-00608 (Plaintiff Attorneys: Rachel Ellenberger, Patrick J. McElhinny, Mark G. Knedeisen, Christopher Michael Verdini, Anna Shabalov, Andrea Leigh Fair) — https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegu03da0a48086b-[2127061](/patent/2127061); K&L Gates bio for Christopher M. Verdini — https://www.klgates.com/lawyers/Christopher-M-Verdini ; PTAB mandatory notice / power of attorney listing McElhinny (lead) and Knedeisen, Rotolo, Bozzo (backup) for Massively Broadband — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00032/Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd._v._Massively_Broadband_LLC/10-22-2025-Patent_Owner/Notice__Power_of_Attorney-6-Patent_Owners_Power_of_Attorney/ and the IPR2026-00086 Updated Mandatory Notice (Jan. 14, 2026) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00086/Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd._v._Massively_Broadband_LLC/01-14-2026-Patent_Owner/Notice__Updated_Mandatory_Notice-9-Notice_Updated_Mandatory_Notice/

Local counsel — Miller Fair Henry PLLC

Attorney Role Firm & office Note
Andrea Leigh Fair (Tex. Bar No. 24078488) Local counsel (E.D. Tex.) Miller Fair Henry PLLC, 1507 Bill Owens Pkwy., Longview, TX 75604; andrea@millerfairhenry.com Filer of record: her CM/ECF signature appears on the complaint (Dkt. 1), the Rule 7.1(a)(1) disclosure statement (Dkt. 3), and the jury demand (Dkt. 4) filed June 6, 2025. Previously with Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC in the same office; a fixture as local counsel in Judge Gilstrap patent cases (e.g., Anonymous Media Research Holdings v. Samsung Electronics America, 2:23-cv-00439; Cornell Univ. v. Verizon, 2:25-cv-00055; Malikie Innovations v. Key Patent Innovations, 2:25-cv-00519; Daignean Techs. v. T-Mobile).

Sources: Justia docket for 2:25-cv-00608 (Dkts. 1, 3, 4 reflect "Fair, Andrea" as filer) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00608/[238424](/patent/238424) ; E.D. Tex. docket sheets showing Fair's Miller Fair Henry contact block — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558188](/patent/1558188)/download-documents?artifactId=tqwwNfJ6KJd2Yi6xgvM_gUWKbCKjG_LErulCdyo8j6v5XDfr3f_rXQw ; https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/56590380/Cornell_University_et_al_v_Verizon_Communications,_Inc_et_al

In-house / party representative (not counsel of record)

PTAB-only counsel designations for the Patent Owner (related IPRs, not district court appearances)

  • Anthony T. Rotolo (Reg. No. 82,691) and Brian P. Bozzo (Reg. No. 77,190) — K&L Gates LLP, 210 Sixth Ave., Pittsburgh, PA — designated backup counsel for Massively Broadband in the companion IPRs (IPR2026-00032, IPR2026-00033, IPR2026-00086). I have not verified any district court notice of appearance for them.

Caveats, gaps, and a correction to the earlier section

  1. Verification level. The E.D. Tex. docket available to me is stale: Justia's docket for 2:25-cv-00608 was "last retrieved on June 6, 2025," the day of filing (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00608/238424). The K&L Gates plaintiff-side appearance list comes from aggregator attorney rosters (UniCourt, and the PacerMonitor roster noted in the earlier section), not from a directly reviewed PACER appearance entry. Only Fair's filings (Dkts. 1, 3, 4) are confirmed from docket text. Treat the K&L Gates entries as well-corroborated but not PACER-verified.

  2. Correction to the "Defendant representatives" section. That section listed Andrea Leigh Fair (Miller Fair Henry PLLC) as a person "listed in association with the case" whose role "could not be definitively confirmed." That is now resolvable: she is plaintiff-side local counsel — she filed the complaint and the Rule 7.1 disclosure on behalf of Massively Broadband, not Samsung.

  3. Unresolved item — Alex Verbin Chachkes (Chachkes Law PLLC). He appears in aggregator attorney listings tied to this case, but I could not confirm which party he represents or whether he made an appearance; my search on this point was cut short. Do not attribute him to the plaintiff without checking the PACER docket.

  4. Cross-reference to the IPR petitioner side (Samsung), for completeness. In IPR2026-00086 and its companion IPRs, service certificates identify Samsung's PTAB counsel as James M. Glass (lead), John McKee, Matthew Robson, Ron Hagiz, Quincy Lu, Andy Yu, and Benjamin Kleinman of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (New York, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco offices), with service email qe-samsung-mbl-ipr@quinnemanuel.com. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00032/Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd._v._Massively_Broadband_LLC/10-22-2025-Patent_Owner/Notice__Power_of_Attorney-6-Patent_Owners_Power_of_Attorney/ — the earlier section captured McKee and Robson but did not name Glass, Hagiz, Lu, Yu, or Kleinman.

  5. No sealed/unavailable-counsel issue identified. Nothing in the record reviewed suggests plaintiff's counsel is under seal; the limitation is docket staleness, not sealing.

Defendant representatives

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

I'll research the defense-side counsel, starting with the district court docket and the parallel IPR.

Let me dig into the district court docket and Samsung's Texas counsel.

Let me verify Samsung's full defense team with more targeted searches.

Defendant (Samsung) Representatives

Scope note. In the case at bar — IPR2026-00086 — Massively Broadband is the patent owner and the Samsung entities are the petitioner. In the underlying district court action, Massively Broadband LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00608-JRG (E.D. Tex., Judge Rodney Gilstrap), the two Samsung entities are the defendants. Because the prior section of this case file covered Massively Broadband's side (the district court plaintiff), this section addresses Samsung's defense team. No in-house counsel for either Samsung entity appears in any public filing located in this pass; if any exist, they have not entered an appearance.

⚠️ Contradiction to flag: The earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section identifies Massively Broadband's counsel as Vinson & Elkins (Michael M. Smith, Michael J. Abernathy, Jeffrey A. Pyle, et al.). Every primary record I could retrieve (the Unicourt docket-attorney listing, the IPR power-of-attorney and certificates of service) shows Massively Broadband's counsel of record as K&L Gates LLP (Patrick J. McElhinny, Mark G. Knedeisen, Anthony T. Rotolo, Brian P. Bozzo) plus East Texas counsel Andrea Leigh Fair and K&L Gates' Rachel Ellenberger, Anna Shabalov, and Christopher M. Verdini — not Vinson & Elkins. See Unicourt docket and IPR2026-00032 Patent Owner's Power of Attorney. The Vinson & Elkins attribution appears unsupported and should be corrected in the final memo. By contrast, the same prior section's attribution of Samsung's defense to Quinn Emanuel + Gillam & Smith is corroborated by the records below.

District Court (2:25-cv-00608-JRG, E.D. Tex.)

Gillam & Smith, LLP — local counsel

Melissa Richards Smith — Local counsel / defense counsel of record

  • Firm/office: Gillam & Smith, LLP, 303 South Washington Ave., Marshall, TX 75670.
  • Docket footprint: Signature counsel on Samsung's first substantive filing, the Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Move, Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint and Waiver of Foreign Service Requirement (Dkt. 7, filed June 25, 2025), in which Samsung agreed to waive Hague Convention service on SEC in exchange for a 91-day extension to September 29, 2025. See motion text. She is also the signatory on Samsung's later case-dispositive work, including Dkt. 46 (Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Invalidity of the '794, '925, and '700 Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101), Dkt. 57 (reply, Aug. 27, 2026), and Dkt. 58 (Unopposed Motion for Leave to Serve Amended Invalidity Contentions, Aug. 28, 2026). See Unicourt docket entries.
  • Experience note: One of the most frequently appearing local-counsel attorneys in Eastern District of Texas patent cases before Judge Gilstrap and a long-standing member of Samsung's Texas defense roster (e.g., her appearance for SEA in the Waco Division matter filed Jan. 8, 2026: notice of appearance).

James Travis Underwood — Counsel (local-counsel team), less confirmed

  • Firm/office: Gillam & Smith, LLP, 7232 Crosswater Ave., Tyler, TX 75703.
  • Note: His name appears alongside Melissa Richards Smith in Gillam & Smith service/notice listings associated with the Samsung/Massively Broadband matter, but I could not retrieve a docket entry confirming his formal entry of appearance in 2:25-cv-00608 in this pass — treat as unconfirmed pending PACER review.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP — lead defense counsel (national)

Quinn Emanuel is Samsung's lead patent-defense firm in this campaign. The attorneys documented as Samsung's counsel across the parallel Massively Broadband IPRs (all of which share the same accused products and the same district court case) are:

Attorney Office Role / note
James M. Glass New York, NY (295 5th Ave., 9th Fl.) First-listed counsel on the service lists for the Massively Broadband IPRs; lead PTAB counsel for Samsung in this campaign. Long-time Quinn Emanuel Samsung patent litigator.
John T. McKee New York, NY Top-tier E.D. Tex. and ITC trial lawyer with multiple Samsung trial wins (e.g., non-infringement verdict for Samsung in Evolved Wireless); Patexia top-100 PTAB petitioners' counsel since 2019; B.S. Electrical Engineering, UT Austin; registered patent attorney. See Quinn Emanuel bio.
Matthew D. Robson New York, NY Samsung patent defense team member; named in the prior case summary as counsel and appears on Quinn Emanuel's Massively Broadband service list.
Ron Hagiz New York, NY Quinn Emanuel IP litigation group.
Quincy Lu Seattle, WA (1109 First Ave., Ste. 210) Named in IPR service lists and in the district-court discovery correspondence exhibit (Ex. 2053).
Andy Yu Los Angeles, CA (865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Fl.) Named in IPR service lists.
Benjamin Kleinman San Francisco, CA (50 California St., 22nd Fl.) Named in IPR service lists.
Chunmeng Yang Seattle, WA Signed the district-court discovery cover correspondence in the Guzman/related service exhibit: chunmengyang@quinnemanuel.com, (206) 905-7077. See IPR2026-00032, Ex. 2053.

Kevin Hardy and Sean S. Pak are named as Samsung's Quinn Emanuel counsel in the previously generated case summary. I could not independently verify a filing signing or appearance for either in 2:25-cv-00608 in this pass — PACER confirmation is needed before relying on those two names.

PTAB (IPR2026-00086 and the 12-IPR campaign)

  • Samsung's petitioner-side service list in the Massively Broadband