SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

This case, IPR2022-01222, involves a patentability challenge initiated by [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), LTD.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20LTD.) against U.S. Patent No. 8,982,863, owned by Smart Mobile Technologies LLC. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC is characterized as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), whose business model focuses on monetizing intellectual property rights in wireless communications and networking through licensing and litigation. Conversely, Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. is a global technology conglomerate and a major operating company based in South Korea, renowned for its consumer electronics, particularly smartphones (such as the Galaxy series), televisions, semiconductors, and other electronic components.

The inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) was filed in response to an underlying patent infringement lawsuit. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC had accused Samsung of infringing several patents, including the '863 patent, in a district court case titled Smart Mobile Technologies LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Inc. et al. (No. 6:21-cv-00701-ADA) in the Western District of Texas. The allegedly infringing products were Samsung's mobile devices, such as the Galaxy smartphones, which are designed with advanced wireless communication functionalities. U.S. Patent No. 8,982,863 broadly covers a controller and server system for networking, detailing a systems architecture for managing communication between networked devices and servers.

This IPR proceeding before the PTAB is a direct challenge to the patentability of the '863 patent's claims, a common strategy for defendants in patent infringement lawsuits to seek invalidation of asserted patents more efficiently than in district court. While the IPR (IPR2022-01222) was pending, the underlying district court litigation between Smart Mobile Technologies LLC and Samsung (W.D. Tex. No. 6:21-cv-00701-ADA) was dismissed with prejudice on July 15, 2024, indicating a negotiated resolution. Furthermore, the '863 patent itself was found unpatentable by the Federal Circuit on December 19, 2025, in a separate appeal, [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) v. Smart Mobile Technologies, LLC (Case No. 24-1624), related to parallel litigation where Smart Mobile Technologies had also asserted the patent against Apple. This Federal Circuit decision affirmed the unpatentability of US Patent 8,982,863, effectively terminating any present or future infringement claims under this patent. The case is notable for exemplifying the assertion patterns of NPEs against major operating companies in the mobile technology sector and the strategic interplay between district court litigation and PTAB challenges.

The patent infringement litigation involving SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., specifically concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,982,863, was primarily handled in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Concurrently, an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2022-01222, was initiated against the same patent, though notably by Apple Inc., not Samsung.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

1. District Court Litigation: SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. et al. (W.D. Tex., Case No. 6:21-cv-00701)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2021-07-02): SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint asserted infringement of twelve U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,982,863.
• Pre-trial Motions – Motion to Transfer Venue (2023-09-11): Samsung filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. The Western District of Texas court, however, denied Samsung's motion to transfer venue. (Note: A separate but related case filed by Smart Mobile Technologies against Apple Inc. (6:21-cv-00603-ADA), also in the Western District of Texas and involving many of the same patents, including 8,982,863, was granted a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California on August 28, 2023.)
• Settlement & Dismissal (2024-07-15): The case concluded with a negotiated resolution. The Court granted a Joint Motion to Vacate Claim Construction Order (if one was issued) and to Dismiss with Prejudice. All claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs. No damages or injunctive relief were awarded.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC (IPR2022-01222)

• IPR Petition Filing (2022-05, exact date not specified in snippets): Apple Inc. filed an inter partes review petition, IPR2022-01222, challenging claims 1–12, 14, 19, and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 8,982,863 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is important to note that despite the prompt specifying Samsung as the defendant in this IPR, the available information indicates Apple Inc. was the petitioner.
• PTAB Final Written Decision (2024-01-26): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a final written decision. The PTAB ruled that claims 1–12, 14, 19, and 24 of the '863 patent had not been shown to be unpatentable as obvious over the asserted prior art combinations.
• Federal Circuit Appeal (Case No. 24-1624, filed 2024-03-29): Apple Inc. timely appealed the PTAB's final written decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Federal Circuit Affirmance (2025-12-19): The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's decision, finding no reversible error. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the PTAB's determination that the challenged claims of the '863 patent were not proven unpatentable.

3. Effect on Litigation

The IPR proceedings initiated by Apple Inc. concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,982,863 did not result in the invalidation of the challenged claims. The PTAB's decision, affirmed by the Federal Circuit, maintained the patentability of claims 1-12, 14, 19, and 24 of the '863 patent. Given that the Smart Mobile Technologies v. Samsung district court case (6:21-cv-00701) was dismissed with prejudice due to a settlement on July 15, 2024, the IPR outcome (which became final with the Federal Circuit's decision on December 19, 2025) occurred after the settlement of the Samsung litigation. Therefore, the IPR's favorable outcome for Smart Mobile Technologies, maintaining the validity of the '863 patent claims, likely strengthened Smart Mobile Technologies' position but did not directly impact the concluded Samsung settlement in a publicly documented adverse way for Smart Mobile.

Smart Mobile Technologies LLC is represented by the following counsel in IPR2022-01222, as indicated by filings related to its appeal to the Federal Circuit:

• Greer N. Shaw

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Graves & Shaw LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Greer N. Shaw has led appellate efforts for Smart Mobile Technologies LLC in Federal Circuit cases concerning patent invalidity.

• Philip J. Graves

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Graves & Shaw LLP
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Philip Graves has been involved in appellate efforts for Smart Mobile Technologies LLC at the Federal Circuit, including in cases affirming patent invalidity. He is also listed as a plaintiff attorney for Smart Mobile Technologies LLC in district court cases.

As of June 18, 2026, the specific counsel of record representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the Patent Owner (defendant) in IPR2022-01222, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,982,863, has not been explicitly identified in the available public search results. While several related cases involving Samsung in patent litigation and other IPRs have been found, direct attorney listings for Samsung in this particular IPR are not present in the provided snippets.

However, based on general patent litigation trends and related cases, an in-house counsel and typically a prominent external law firm would represent Samsung in such a proceeding.

Based on the available information:

• Matthew Bathon
  • Role: Principal Legal Counsel
  • Firm: Samsung Electronics
  • Office Location: Not specified, but likely at a Samsung Electronics legal department.
  • Relevant Experience: Coordinates Samsung's International Trade Commission (ITC) and district court dockets and speaks on IP issues, particularly regarding the ITC. Prior to joining Samsung, he was a partner at Steptoe LLP, focusing on Section 337 investigations before the ITC and IP disputes in district courts across various technologies.

While not definitively linked to IPR2022-01222 in the provided results, law firms frequently representing Samsung in other patent litigation and IPR matters include firms like Fish & Richardson and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. For example, April Sunyoung Park from Fish & Richardson has represented Samsung in patent litigation concerning digital signal processing for televisions and smartphones and wireless communication. Additionally, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP represented Samsung in a Federal Circuit appeal involving a different patent. However, these examples are from other cases and do not confirm their involvement in IPR2022-01222.

The PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) would be the definitive source for counsel of record in IPR proceedings, but direct access to its detailed docket entries for IPR2022-01222 was not achieved through the web searches.