Secure Communication Technologies, LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

The case "Secure Communication Technologies, LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD." involves Secure Communication Technologies, LLC, a Texas entity formed in January 2024, suing SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. for patent infringement. Secure Communication Technologies, LLC is identified as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), having received a transfer of 16 U.S. patents in April 2024 from Proxicom Wireless, LLC. The plaintiff's manager, Eric M. Albritton, has a history of forming multiple Texas entities for patent assertion. Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a global technology conglomerate known for its consumer electronics, including smartphones, laptops, and tablets. [[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America), Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) was also named as a defendant in the initial filing.

The lawsuit accuses Samsung of infringing U.S. Patent 11,334,918, along with two other patents (11,443,344 and 11,687,971, although the current prompt only lists 11334918). These patents are generally related to wireless communication through the use of wireless service identifiers. Specifically, the accused products and technologies include various features of Samsung devices such as laptops, smartphones, and tablets, which support Fast Pair, Find My Mobile, Nearby Share, Quick Share, and SmartThings Find features. A one-line technical sketch for US Patent 11,334,918 describes a "Mobile communication device having a service discovery and advertisement module."

This litigation was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.), a venue historically popular for patent infringement lawsuits due to its plaintiff-friendly procedural rules and accelerated trial schedules. The case was assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The Eastern District of Texas consistently ranks as a top venue for patent litigation, especially for NPE filings, and has seen a significant number of high-dollar patent damage awards. The case was terminated on August 14, 2025. Its noteworthiness stems from Secure Communication Technologies, LLC launching its first patent assertion campaign with this lawsuit against a major technology company like Samsung, consistent with the broader trend of NPEs targeting high-tech sectors for patent litigation. While not explicitly linked in this case, other patents held by Secure Communication Technologies, LLC have been subject to inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), indicating a pattern of active patent enforcement and defensive challenges in parallel proceedings.

The patent infringement litigation "Secure Communication Technologies, LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD." in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00484) has concluded with a settlement and dismissal. Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments and outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Secure Communication Technologies, LLC (SCT) filed its complaint against SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. on July 3, 2024, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 11,334,918, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 11,443,344 and 11,687,971. The lawsuit accused Samsung devices with features like Fast Pair, Find My Mobile, Nearby Share, Quick Share, and SmartThings Find of infringement.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• There is no indication of substantive pre-trial motions like motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment being fully litigated and decided by the court. The case terminated relatively quickly, suggesting these motions may not have reached a conclusive stage.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A Docket Control Order issued on December 3, 2024, indicates that a Markman Hearing was scheduled. However, due to the subsequent settlement and dismissal, a claim construction order was likely never issued.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• Details regarding specific discovery milestones are not publicly available in the provided information.

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

• The case did not proceed to trial. Therefore, there was no verdict or post-trial motions.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Settlement Agreement: On August 7, 2025, Secure Communication Technologies, LLC and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. entered into a Patent License Agreement. This agreement resolved all pending controversies between the parties concerning the asserted patents.
• Dismissal with Prejudice: Concurrently with the patent license agreement, the parties filed joint motions to dismiss all claims in the Eastern District of Texas litigation with prejudice. The case was officially terminated on August 14, 2025.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR Petitions Filed: On May 30, 2025, Samsung filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against all three patents asserted in the district court litigation: IPR2025-01049 (for U.S. Patent 11,334,918), IPR2025-01050 (for U.S. Patent 11,443,344), and IPR2025-01051 (for U.S. Patent 11,687,971).
• Termination of IPR Proceedings: As a direct result of the Patent License Agreement reached on August 7, 2025, Samsung and SCT jointly moved to terminate all three IPR proceedings. The termination of the IPRs was authorized by the PTAB via email on August 14, 2025, the same day the district court case was terminated.

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record for this case. Let me run several searches.

Let me dig into the specific attorneys and firms, including the complaint signature block and the McKool Smith involvement.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Secure Communication Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00484 (E.D. Tex.)

SCT was represented by a two-firm team: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. (out-of-district lead/back-up prosecution-and-IPR counsel, Fort Worth and Burr Ridge) and McKool Smith P.C. (Marshall, Texas office — local/E.D. Tex.-facing counsel). This is consistent with the prior sections' note that "Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. represents the plaintiff" and that "McKool Smith P.C. also represented SCT against Samsung." Below is what the public record shows, with sourcing and caveats.

Counsel of record (as docketed)

Ginnings and Grochocinski are the two attorneys the docket affirmatively shows appearing in the district court; Truelove is listed as a plaintiff attorney in docket-aggregator records. Bumgardner, Ginnings (again), plus Christopher G. Granaghan (Fort Worth) and Taryn N. Trusty (Burr Ridge) appear on SCT's PTAB Patent Owner mandatory notices (dated June 9, 2025) for IPR2025-01049/01050/01051 — i.e., the same litigation team defending the patents administratively. Granaghan and Trusty are not confirmed as district-court appearances in this case.

Sourcing

• Docket appearances: Justia docket for 2:24-cv-00484 (Dkt. 7, Grochocinski appearance; Dkt. 8, Ginnings appearance; Truelove listed as represented-by counsel) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2024cv00484/[231285](/patent/231285); mirrored by UniCourt ("Plaintiff Attorneys: Charles Austin Ginnings, Timothy E. Grochocinski, Jennifer Leigh Truelove") — https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegua3a3aa4ae41f-[1867661](/patent/1867661).
• Firm identification / IPR team: SCT's Patent Owner Mandatory Notices filed in the parallel Samsung IPRs (June 9, 2025), listing Brent Bumgardner (lead), C. Austin Ginnings (back-up), Christopher G. Granaghan, Timothy E. Grochocinski, and Taryn N. Trusty, all of Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. — USPTO PTACTS, IPR2025-01051 filings.
• McKool Smith involvement: RPX/Mondaq, "New Plaintiff Returns Wireless Communications Family To Litigation" (July 22, 2024) and "As Samsung Exits, Secure Communication Technologies Sues Apple And Google" (Aug. 27, 2025) — "Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. represents the plaintiff. (McKool Smith P.C. also represented SCT against Samsung.)"
• Truelove firm/office: State Bar of Texas profile and CourtListener/PACER appearances — McKool Smith, P.C., 104 E. Houston St., Suite 300, Marshall, TX 75670.

Caveats and gaps

• Docket currency. The Justia/UniCourt dockets I could retrieve were last synced in August 2024. Only three plaintiff-side appearances (Ginnings, Grochocinski, Truelove) are affirmatively reflected. The case ran until Aug. 14, 2025, so additional appearances (e.g., Granaghan or Trusty entering the district case, or a formal McKool Smith appearance for Truelove) may exist that I could not confirm from the venues available to me. PACER's live docket would be authoritative.
• No sealed-counsel issue. Nothing suggests the plaintiff's counsel is sealed; the limitation is docket-retrieval currency, not sealing.
• Eric M. Albritton. Albritton is SCT's founder/manager and principal (patent attorney; former named partner of Nelson Bumgardner Albritton, now Nelson Bumgardner Conroy) and is the practical driving force behind the NPE's enforcement campaign. I did not find a docket entry confirming Albritton appeared as counsel of record in 2:24-cv-00484, so I am not listing him as counsel — I note him only because the prior case-overview section identifies him as SCT's manager. Treat any claim that he was counsel of record here as unverified.
• No in-house plaintiff counsel. SCT is a single-member NPE with no in-house legal department; all identified representation is outside counsel.

Contradiction to flag with the earlier-generated section

The previously generated "Defendant representatives" section (a search-artifact listing Quinn Emanuel, DLA Piper, and Kirkland & Ellis as "highly likely" Samsung counsel) conflicts with the actual record. Samsung's real counsel in this matter, per the IPR petitions and docket-aggregator data, appears to be Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (Steven J. Routh, Sten Jensen, T. Vann Pearce, Jr. — Washington, D.C.; petitioner counsel William Fink) with Findlay Craft, P.C. (Eric H. Findlay, Tyler, TX) as local counsel, and PatSnap also lists O'Melveny & Myers, Potter Minton, and Gillam & Smith (Melissa Richards Smith). The earlier section should be revised — its named firms/individuals are not the ones reflected in the PTAB filings for this case.

I'll research Samsung's counsel of record in this case. Let me run several searches in parallel.

Now let me dig deeper into Samsung's district-court appearances and the PTAB filings that identify its litigation counsel.

Let me verify the O'Melveny/Gillam & Smith appearances in this specific case and check whether the Orrick/Findlay Craft document actually belongs to this matter.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Secure Communication Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00484 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Samsung was defended by O'Melveny & Myers LLP as lead/outside counsel, with Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, Texas) as local E.D. Tex. counsel. The two firms appear together on the signature block of Samsung's July 10, 2025 court filing in this case, and Gillam & Smith's Melissa R. Smith filed the defendants' first appearance-type filing (Dkt. 6, Aug. 23, 2024). O'Melveny also served as Samsung's petitioner counsel in the three parallel IPRs. The same team acted for both defendants (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.).

1. District court — appearances reflected in the record

Evidence: Dkt. 6, Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer … and Waiver of Foreign Service Requirement (filed Aug. 23, 2024) by "SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.," signed by Melissa R. Smith — Justia docket https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2024cv00484/231285 and UniCourt https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegua3a3aa4ae41f-1867661 (both list "Defendant Attorney: Melissa Richards Smith"). The July 10, 2025 Notice of Samsung Defendants' Sotera Plus Prior Art Stipulation, filed in "EDTX 2:24-CV-00484-JRG-RSP," is signed by Ryan K. Yagura, Nicholas J. Whilt (PHV), Benjamin Haber, and Laura M. Burson of O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Los Angeles) and Melissa R. Smith of Gillam & Smith, LLP, expressly as "Counsel for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc." — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557951](/patent/1557951)/download-documents?artifactId=7UNhsWmk8pufQf3pK5Ug93Ca6x7dNFiXhj7GgU1s1XrpsfktJE40PZI

Also relevant: the case carries a "JURY" flag and the docket lists "Jury Demand Defendant" — i.e., it was Samsung (not SCT) that demanded a jury (gaeflex docket mirror, E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00484).

2. Parallel PTAB proceedings — Samsung's petitioner counsel (O'Melveny)

Samsung filed IPR2025-01049 ('918 patent), IPR2025-01050 ('344), and IPR2025-01051 ('971) on May 30, 2025. The power of attorney in IPR2025-01051 identifies: