Apex Beam Technologies v. Samsung: 12-Patent 5G Infringement Case Settled in 182 Days
Apex Beam Technologies LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas asserting 12 US patents covering 5G wireless communications against Samsung’s full Galaxy lineup — over 50 devices. The parties resolved all claims within six months, securing a joint dismissal with prejudice before Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 18 September 2024.
A 12-patent 5G broadside against Samsung’s Galaxy portfolio ends quietly
On 20 March 2024, Apex Beam Technologies LLC filed Case No. 2:24-cv-00203 in the Eastern District of Texas against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., asserting infringement of twelve US patents directed at 5G wireless communications technology. The accused products comprised more than 50 Samsung Galaxy smartphones, tablets, foldables, and laptops — spanning Galaxy S, Note, Z Fold, Z Flip, A-series, and Galaxy Book lines, all incorporating 5G connectivity.
The case resolved with a joint motion to dismiss filed by both parties and granted by Judge Gilstrap on 18 September 2024. All of Apex Beam’s infringement claims against Samsung, and all of Samsung’s counterclaims and defenses against Apex Beam, were dismissed with prejudice. The parties stated they had resolved their respective claims, consistent with a confidential settlement. The court ordered each side to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, which is standard in agreed resolutions of this kind.
At 182 days from filing to closure, the case resolved significantly faster than many comparable multi-patent E.D. Texas actions, suggesting the parties reached commercial terms relatively early — potentially before substantial claim construction work. The public record does not disclose any licensing terms, royalty rates, or the scope of any release. The dismissal with prejudice forecloses any re-filing of the same claims by Apex Beam, making the resolution structurally final even if undisclosed financially.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 182 days
182 days — resolved well below the E.D. Texas median for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint resolution means for both parties
With prejudice dismissal bars any re-filing on these claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Apex Beam cannot re-file the same 12 patent claims against Samsung on the same accused products in any US court. The joint nature of the motion signals that the resolution was mutually agreed, not a unilateral withdrawal, typically indicating a negotiated settlement rather than a simple walk-away.
Res judicata — no re-filing possibleApex Beam surrenders re-filing rights — but likely extracted commercial value
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Apex Beam accepted permanent closure of this particular action. Patent assertion entities in E.D. Texas routinely accept with-prejudice dismissals as part of licensing settlements — the trade-off being licence fees or a cross-licence in exchange for extinguishing the litigation risk. The public record is silent on financial terms, but the rapid resolution and mutual dismissal of all claims and defences is consistent with a negotiated commercial outcome.
Settlement implied — terms undisclosedSamsung secures closure across its full 5G Galaxy portfolio
Samsung and Samsung Electronics America obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims across more than 50 accused 5G devices. All Samsung counterclaims and defences were also dismissed with prejudice, which is the standard mutual release structure. The own-costs order means Samsung bears no adverse fee award. Whether the resolution included a licence covering future Galaxy 5G products is not disclosed, but with-prejudice dismissals of this scope typically carry at least a covenant not to sue.
All claims extinguished — portfolio-wide12 live 5G patents remain enforceable against third parties
The dismissal resolves only Apex Beam’s dispute with Samsung. All 12 asserted patents remain in force and could be asserted against other 5G device makers. Companies competing with Samsung in the 5G handset, tablet, and laptop space — particularly those not yet holding a licence from Apex Beam — should treat this settlement as a signal that Apex Beam is actively monetising this portfolio and prepared to litigate in E.D. Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
Portfolio still live for third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Apex Beam Technologies, LLC | Company | 5G wireless patent assertion entity — holder of US11457426B2 and 11 related 5G patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. — global consumer electronics manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Apex Beam Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Leigh Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for Apex Beam Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julian Glenn Pymento | Attorney | Counsel for Apex Beam Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Apex Beam Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Apex Beam Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Apex Beam Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Apex Beam Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McKool Smith PC (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Apex Beam Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin R. Schlesinger | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles H. Suh | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher T. Blackford | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel F. Roland | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Frank A. DeCosta , III | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas A. Cerulli | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Parmanand K. Sharma | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert King High , III | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shawn S. Chang | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | 901 New York Ave., NW | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garret Dunner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Reston) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan, LLP (Washington DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP – Atlanta | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts verbatim the parties’ agreed framing — that all claims and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice following resolution of the dispute. The phrase ‘resolved their respective claims’ is deliberately non-specific, consistent with a confidential settlement agreement. The with-prejudice standard is legally significant: it extinguishes Apex Beam’s right to re-assert these twelve patents against Samsung on these facts, and Samsung’s counterclaims are equally extinguished. The own-costs direction is neutral, suggesting no party achieved a litigation outcome strong enough to support fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US11457426B2 and 11 co-asserted patents — 5G wireless communication technology
The twelve patents asserted by Apex Beam Technologies — led by US11457426B2 — are US utility patents covering 5G New Radio (NR) wireless communication techniques, filed across application numbers in the US17 and US16 series, indicating application dates predominantly in the 2020–2021 period. The patents appear to cover a range of 5G PHY and protocol-layer technologies, including channel access, signal transmission, scheduling, and beamforming-adjacent methods relevant to compliant 5G devices.
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its breadth: twelve patents targeting the 5G communication stack, asserted simultaneously against Samsung’s entire 5G-enabled product range. For original equipment manufacturers and chipset vendors operating in the 5G space, portfolios of this structure — multiple overlapping patents on communication protocols — create layered FTO risk because invalidating one patent leaves eleven others in force. The rapid settlement with Samsung suggests Apex Beam’s portfolio had sufficient claim coverage to motivate commercial resolution over litigation.
Should your team run an FTO against the Apex Beam 5G patent portfolio?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or selling 5G-enabled devices in the United States — including smartphones, tablets, laptops, routers, or IoT hardware — should assess exposure to Apex Beam’s portfolio. The 12 asserted patents cover communications-layer 5G techniques that may read on standard-compliant implementations, meaning that compliance with 3GPP 5G NR standards does not automatically confer freedom to operate. The E.D. Texas filing against Samsung’s full product range signals willingness to pursue broad, multi-product assertions.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the 12 Apex Beam patents to your specific product architecture, identify claim elements most likely to be asserted, surface prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and flag related continuation applications that could expand the assertion footprint. R&D teams planning 5G product launches should initiate this analysis before finalising hardware and software stacks, not after receiving a demand letter.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11457426B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 5G wireless patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Explore comparable 5G NR patent infringement actions filed in E.D. Texas against consumer electronics OEMs, including NPE assertions and standard-essential patent disputes.
What this case signals for the 5G wireless patent licensing landscape
A 12-patent assertion against Samsung’s full 5G lineup, resolved in under six months, is a textbook patent monetisation play — and a warning for the broader 5G industry.
E.D. Texas remains the forum of choice for 5G patent assertion against device makers
Apex Beam’s filing in Judge Gilstrap’s court follows the well-established playbook for NPE assertions against consumer electronics OEMs. The Eastern District’s familiarity with patent cases, predictable scheduling, and plaintiff-friendly precedents continue to attract this litigation class. Any 5G device manufacturer without cleared licences on the Apex Beam portfolio should treat this case as a direct signal.
A 12-patent cluster covering 5G communications creates broad FTO exposure
With twelve patents spanning multiple 5G application numbers, Apex Beam has constructed a portfolio designed to cover multiple claim angles across 5G communication protocols. Competitors launching 5G handsets, tablets, or connected laptops should conduct an FTO analysis across the full Apex Beam portfolio — not just the patents named in this action — before product launch or market entry.
Apex v Samsung — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 18 September 2024 following a joint motion by both parties. The parties stated they had resolved their respective claims, consistent with a confidential settlement. All of Apex Beam’s patent infringement claims and Samsung’s counterclaims were extinguished. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Apex Beam asserted twelve US patents: US11457426B2, US11917581B2, US11063727B2, US11374721B2, US10986695B1, US11637615B2, US10979128B1, US11546110B2, US11626904B2, US10965434B1, US11139944B2, and US11108639B2. All relate to 5G wireless communication technology and were filed across US16 and US17 series applications.
Over 50 Samsung devices were accused, spanning the Galaxy S, Note, A-series, Z Fold, Z Flip, M-series, F-series, Tab, and Galaxy Book lines — all 5G-enabled. Models ranged from Galaxy S10 5G through Galaxy S24 Ultra, and included foldables such as the Z Fold4 and tablets including Galaxy Tab S8+ 5G.
Dismissed with prejudice means Apex Beam is permanently barred from re-filing the same patent claims against Samsung on the same accused products in any US court. It functions as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. The joint nature of the dismissal motion indicates the parties negotiated the resolution, with the terms remaining confidential.
The dismissal resolves only Apex Beam’s dispute with Samsung. All 12 asserted patents remain in force and can be asserted against other companies. Manufacturers and importers of 5G devices who have not secured a licence from Apex Beam should treat this settlement as a signal that the portfolio is actively monetised and that E.D. Texas is Apex Beam’s preferred litigation venue.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.