Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. VB Assets, LLC

[Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and its subsidiary Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are global operating companies, renowned for their wide range of consumer electronics, including smartphones, tablets, TVs, home appliances, and semiconductors. They are major players in the mobile device and digital appliance markets. The opposing party, VB Assets, LLC, operates as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), focusing on owning, licensing, and enforcing a portfolio of intellectual property. These patents originated from VoiceBox Technologies, an early pioneer in conversational AI and natural language systems, which VB Assets acquired after VoiceBox was acquired by Nuance Communications in 2018. VB Assets was formed by former employees and investors of VoiceBox who retained ownership of the patents in dispute.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00866) filed by Samsung against VB Assets, LLC targets U.S. Patent 8,073,681, titled "System and method for a cooperative conversational voice user interface". This patent broadly describes a voice user interface that leverages short-term and long-term shared knowledge to interpret user intent and generate adaptive responses, tolerating misrecognitions and correcting conversational flow. While the IPR is a challenge to the patent's validity before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), it is linked to an underlying patent infringement lawsuit filed by VB Assets against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas (2:24-cv-00866, filed October 2024). In that district court case, VB Assets alleges that Samsung's Bixby 2.0 voice assistant and supporting devices, such as earbuds, home appliances, smartphones, smartwatches, tablets, and TVs, infringe the '681 patent, among others.

This case is notable as it reflects a continuing trend of NPEs asserting voice recognition and AI-related patents against major technology companies. VB Assets has a history of litigating these patents, including a significant win against Amazon in Delaware where a jury found Amazon's Alexa products infringed VB Assets' patents and awarded $46.7 million in damages. VB Assets has also initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Apple and Google in the District of Delaware, asserting patents related to voice assistants and conversational AI. The IPR proceedings at the PTAB often run parallel to district court litigation, serving as a critical battleground for challenging patent validity and potentially influencing the outcome or scope of the infringement claims in the district court. The PTAB's decision of "Not Instituted - Procedural" in this specific IPR indicates that the Board declined to proceed with a full review of the patent's validity, likely due to a procedural deficiency in Samsung's petition or an application of the Fintiv factors, although the exact reason for the procedural denial is not detailed in the provided information.

This analysis focuses on the patent infringement litigation filed by VB Assets, LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:24-cv-00866, as well as the related IPR proceedings.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint: VB Assets, LLC filed its 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 on October 9, 2024. The case number is 2:24-cv-00828-JRG-RSP, though some documents also refer to 2:24-cv-00866. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent 8,073,681, among other patents, by Samsung's Bixby 2.0 voice assistant and associated devices.
• Answer & Counterclaims: While the specific dates for Samsung's answer and counterclaims are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, it's customary for defendants in patent litigation to file an answer denying infringement and asserting affirmative defenses, including patent invalidity. Samsung's invalidity contentions in the related IPR proceedings indicate their intent to challenge the patent's eligibility under § 101, as well as other grounds.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR: It is highly probable that Samsung filed a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Such motions are common when IPRs are initiated, as they can streamline litigation by potentially invalidating the asserted patent claims. However, the outcome of any such motion in 2:24-cv-00866 is not yet publicly available in the provided search results.
• Motions to Dismiss / Summary Judgment: No specific rulings on motions to dismiss or summary judgment have been identified in the provided information for this particular case. However, Samsung's invalidity contentions indicate that they are challenging the '681 patent's eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which is a common basis for early dispositive motions.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• While a specific Markman order for VB Assets v. Samsung (2:24-cv-00866 or 2:24-cv-00828) is not yet available, a Memorandum Order Regarding Claim Construction from VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (1:19-cv-01410-MN) was issued on May 19, 2025. This outcome in a parallel case involving the same patent owner and the '681 patent may be highly influential or even serve as a reference in the Samsung litigation, depending on the court's discretion and any stipulations between the parties.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• Details regarding specific discovery milestones with strategic significance for this case are not available in the provided search results.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:

• The district court case is still active, and no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred as of June 2, 2026. Given the case filing in October 2024, it is still in the relatively early stages of litigation, and trials in patent cases often occur much later. For context, the median time from case filing to a claim construction hearing in the Eastern District of Texas is 430 days, and to summary judgment is 619 days, as of March 2025.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The case remains active. No settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been reported.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2025-00866 (U.S. Patent 8,073,681): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review petition against VB Assets, LLC for U.S. Patent 8,073,681. This IPR was filed on April 25, 2025. The PTAB's status for this IPR is "Not Instituted - Procedural." This means the Board declined to initiate a full review of the patent's validity, likely due to a procedural deficiency in Samsung's petition or an application of the Fintiv factors (which allow the PTAB to deny institution based on the stage of parallel district court litigation). The precise procedural reason for non-institution is not detailed in the provided information, but a decision denying institution was rendered by May 23, 2026.
• Other IPRs: It is worth noting that VB Assets, LLC is involved in other IPR proceedings, such as IPR2025-00868, though the petitioner for that IPR is not specified in the provided text. The broader context indicates that the PTAB, under Director John Squires, has been making changes that limit the availability of AIA review, including denying petitions from companies linked to foreign governments and considering the petition's impact on domestic manufacturing. These changes, implemented in Q1 2026, could potentially affect future IPR strategies or the outcomes of existing IPRs.

The plaintiff(s) in this case are Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. While specific counsel for the IPR2025-00866 case were not extensively detailed in broad searches, information regarding Samsung's typical patent litigation and IPR counsel, as well as in-house counsel, can be identified.

Outside Counsel (O'Melveny & Myers LLP)

• William M. Fink
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC office
  • Note: Represents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in IPR proceedings.
• Brian Cook
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA office
  • Note: Represents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in IPR proceedings.
• Nicholas Whilt
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA office
  • Note: Represents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in IPR proceedings.
• Benjamin Haber
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA office
  • Note: Represents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in IPR proceedings.
• Caitlin Hogan
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY office
  • Note: Represents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in IPR proceedings.
• Raj Paul
  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC office
  • Note: Represents Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in IPR proceedings.

In-House Counsel (Samsung Electronics / Samsung Electronics America)

• Jae-Il Park
  • Role: Legal Counsel (for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.)
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Tim Jezek
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics America
  • Note: Focuses on IP litigation and related policy issues with over two decades of experience.
• Matthew Bathon
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics
  • Note: Coordinates Samsung's ITC and district court dockets and has prior experience as a partner at Steptoe LLP litigating Section 337 investigations and IP disputes.
• Phillip Lee
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics US IP Center
  • Note: Veteran litigator with experience in patent litigation, prosecution, and licensing across various technologies, appearing before federal district courts, the PTAB, ITC, and the Federal Circuit.
• Ken Korea
  • Role: Former Senior Vice President, Silicon Valley IP Office (for Samsung Electronics)
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics (previously); currently at Colev Law
  • Note: While not directly listed as counsel for this IPR, his extensive experience at Samsung included building and leading a team handling patent litigation, licensing, acquisition, and policy matters, and he has significant patent litigation and licensing expertise.

It is important to note that specific appearances can vary by case, and while O'Melveny & Myers LLP is identified as counsel for the petitioners in the IPR, the Eastern District of Texas case (2:24-cv-00866) may involve additional or different counsel. Some sources indicate Alston & Bird LLP as counsel for VB Assets, LLC in the district court case, not Samsung.

VB Assets, LLC is represented by several firms in its patent litigation against Samsung.

The lead counsel for VB Assets, LLC in the broader patent infringement case (2:24-cv-00866) includes:

• Matthew D. Powers (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Tensegrity Law Group LLP, Redwood Shores, CA.
  • Experience: Mr. Powers is a founding partner known for trying patent, trade secret, antitrust, and contract cases and has led teams winning "billion-dollar cases" for major companies. He has extensive experience in U.S. district courts, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit. He has been recognized as a "Star Performer" by Chambers USA and "Outstanding IP Practitioner of the Year" by Managing IP magazine.

Other counsel involved in VB Assets' related patent enforcement efforts and potentially in this case, based on their involvement in the underlying district court case or parallel litigations, include:

• Jeffrey A. Lamken (Counsel)

  • Firm: MoloLamken LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Mr. Lamken is a nationally recognized appellate practitioner, having argued numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeals, with deep expertise in the Federal Circuit. He also develops and argues critical motions in trial matters.

• David Almeling (Counsel)

  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, San Francisco, CA. (It is worth noting that he was previously with Fish & Richardson and has been referred to as a "key figure in the trade secrets space".)
  • Experience: Mr. Almeling focuses on complex trade secret and intellectual property disputes, including patent litigation and proceedings before the USPTO. He has testified before Congress on safeguarding trade secrets and is the author of "Trade Secret Law and Corporate Strategy."

• Neal C. Belgam (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Mr. Belgam has represented VB Assets in other District of Delaware cases, such as against Amazon.com Services LLC.

• James C. Yoon (Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C., Palo Alto, CA.
  • Experience: Mr. Yoon has represented VB Assets in previous patent infringement cases, including against Amazon.

• Hannah E. Pollack (Counsel)

  • Firm: Swanson & McNamara LLP. (Her prior firm was Cooley LLP).
  • Experience: Ms. Pollack has experience in criminal defense, complex commercial litigation, and government investigations, including matters involving computer fraud and abuse.

It's important to note that while the IPR case (IPR2025-00866) was not instituted for procedural reasons, the listed counsel are involved in the broader patent litigation efforts by VB Assets, LLC against Samsung and other technology companies. The provided information for the IPR itself did not detail the specific counsel appearances for VB Assets, but the parallel district court case (2:24-cv-00866) filings and other related litigations indicate the representation.