Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al. v. Hannibal IP LLC

This inter partes review (IPR) case, IPR2025-01188, involved Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics America Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") as petitioners challenging a patent held by Hannibal IP LLC. Samsung, a South Korean multinational conglomerate, is a leading global operating company known for its vast array of consumer electronics, mobile technology, and semiconductors, including smartphones and 5G-enabled devices. Conversely, Hannibal IP LLC is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), operating as an affiliate of Longhorn IP LLC, a firm specializing in patent monetization. Hannibal IP LLC acquired a portfolio of patents focused on cutting-edge 5G wireless communication technologies.

The IPR was initiated in response to a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Hannibal IP LLC against Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:2025cv00200) on February 27, 2025. The asserted patent in the IPR was U.S. Patent No. 11,272,535, which pertains to 5G wireless communication technologies incorporated into the 3GPP 5G Standard. While specific accused products were not detailed in the IPR filings, the underlying district court litigation typically targets Samsung's 5G-enabled devices, such as Galaxy smartphones, tablets, and watches.

This case was heard by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body within the USPTO, rather than a federal district court. The IPR was filed on July 11, 2025, and concluded on April 17, 2026, with a settlement between the parties. The PTAB provides a specialized forum for challenging patent validity, offering an alternative to the often more protracted and costly district court litigation. This case is notable as it exemplifies a common defensive strategy employed by large operating companies like Samsung—which frequently leverages IPRs against patents asserted by NPEs—in response to infringement lawsuits, particularly those filed in venues such as the Eastern District of Texas, known for its active patent docket. The settlement indicates a resolution, which was confirmed by a subsequent patent license agreement between Hannibal IP LLC and Samsung covering the foundational 5G wireless communication technologies.

Legal Developments and Outcome for Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al. v. Hannibal IP LLC

This case involves an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01188, filed by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics America Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") against Hannibal IP LLC ("Hannibal") concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,272,535. The IPR was closely related to a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Hannibal against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas.

Key Legal Developments:

2025-02-27: District Court Litigation Filed
Hannibal IP LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case, Hannibal IP, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., bears case number 4:25-cv-00200. The asserted patents relate to 5G wireless communication technologies.

2025-07-11: Inter Partes Review (IPR) Filed
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics America Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review petition, IPR2025-01188, against Hannibal IP LLC with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,272,535. This IPR was likely filed in response to the ongoing district court infringement litigation.

2026-04-17: IPR Terminated Due to Settlement
The IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01188, was officially terminated by the PTAB on April 17, 2026, due to a settlement between Samsung and Hannibal. The termination occurred before the PTAB made a decision on institution, indicating that the parties reached a resolution of their underlying dispute.

Outcome:

Both the IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01188) and the related district court litigation (4:25-cv-00200) were resolved through a confidential settlement between Samsung and Hannibal. The IPR was terminated without a decision on the merits, as is common when parties reach a settlement. The termination of the IPR effectively concluded the challenge to the validity of patent 11,272,535 before the PTAB. While specific details of the settlement are not publicly available, such resolutions typically lead to the dismissal of the parallel district court infringement case.

Based on available information from related proceedings, the following counsel are identified as likely representing Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics America Inc. in IPR2025-01188. While specific counsel for IPR2025-01188 were not directly identified, Samsung is represented by these firms in related inter partes reviews and district court litigation against Hannibal IP LLC concerning related patents.

Counsel representing the Plaintiff(s) (Samsung Electronics Co Ltd; Samsung Electronics America Inc.):

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

• Parmanand K Sharma
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Identified as lead attorney for Samsung in the related district court case 4:25cv200 (Hannibal IP, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.), which includes patent 11272535.
• Benjamin R Schlesinger
  • Role: Of Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, Atlanta, GA
  • Note: Appears for Samsung in the related district court case.
• Robert King High III
  • Role: Of Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, Atlanta, GA
  • Note: Appears for Samsung in the related district court case.
• Charles H Suh
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner (office location not specified in available snippets, but likely a Finnegan office)
  • Note: Appears for Samsung in the related district court case.

Cole Schotz P.C.

• Jeffrey M. Saltman
  • Role: Counsel (Member)
  • Firm & Office Location: Cole Schotz P.C. (office not specified in available snippet for his role in IPR, but firm has Dallas office)
  • Note: Acted as counsel for Petitioners (Samsung) in a related IPR (IPR2025-01187) against Hannibal IP LLC. He has extensive experience litigating patent infringement cases and has been co-lead counsel in trials.
• Seokin Yeh
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Cole Schotz P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Note: Appears for Samsung in the related district court case.
• Maram Alshaer
  • Role: Of Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Not specified, but appeared on behalf of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Note: Filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance - Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Samsung in the related district court case.
• Chen Zang
  • Role: Of Counsel (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Firm & Office Location: Not specified, but appeared on behalf of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  • Note: Filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance - Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Samsung in the related district court case.

It is inferred that these attorneys and their respective firms, actively representing Samsung against Hannibal IP LLC in closely related district court litigation (4:25cv200) involving the same patent (11272535) and in other IPRs with similar case numbers (e.g., IPR2025-01187), would also be the counsel of record for Samsung in IPR2025-01188.

Hannibal IP LLC, the defendant (Patent Owner) in IPR2025-01188, was represented by attorneys from Cole Schotz P.C. Based on related filings and IPRs involving Hannibal IP LLC and Samsung, the following counsel are identified:

• Vishal Hemant Patel

  • Role: Lead Attorney
  • Firm: Cole Schotz P.C., Dallas, TX
  • Note: Represents Hannibal IP LLC in patent matters, including sending licensing inquiries regarding its 5G patent portfolio to Samsung. Has extensive experience litigating patent infringement cases.

• Alexander Joseph Jacovetty

  • Role: Attorney to be Noticed
  • Firm: Cole Schotz P.C., Dallas, TX

• Brian Andrew Carpenter

  • Role: Attorney to be Noticed
  • Firm: Cole Schotz, PC, Dallas, TX

• Brian Lawrence King

  • Role: Attorney to be Noticed
  • Firm: Cole Schotz, PC - Dallas, Dallas, TX

• Gary R Sorden

  • Role: Attorney to be Noticed
  • Firm: Cole Schotz, PC - Dallas, Dallas, TX

• Rajkumar Vinnakota

  • Role: Attorney to be Noticed
  • Firm: Cole Schotz, PC - Dallas, Dallas, TX

• Seokin Yeh

  • Role: Attorney to be Noticed
  • Firm: Cole Schotz P.C., Dallas, TX

• Jeffrey M. Saltman

  • Role: Member (likely lead or significant counsel in IPRs, based on affidavit for pro hac vice admission)
  • Firm: Cole Schotz P.C.
  • Note: Has been practicing law since September 2006 and has extensive experience litigating patent infringement cases in many different courts across the United States, including serving as co-lead counsel in trials and arguing patent-related hearings concerning claim construction, validity, and infringement.

These attorneys are listed as representing Hannibal IP LLC in the related district court case 4:25cv200, which explicitly mentions IPR2025-01188, and in other related IPR proceedings (e.g., IPR2025-01187). It is common practice for the same firm and attorneys to handle both the district court litigation and corresponding IPRs for a patent owner.