Artax LLC v. Samsung Electronics: Three-Patent Smartphone Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Texas-based patent assertion entity Artax LLC sued Samsung Electronics and two US affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three patents against more than 65 Galaxy smartphone models. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by both sides under Rule 41 after just 137 days — suggesting a confidential resolution before substantive litigation began.
Three Patents, 65+ Galaxy Devices, and a Swift Exit in East Texas
Artax LLC filed suit on December 28, 2023, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Amos L. Mazzant, asserting infringement of three US patents — US8107608B2, US9514368B2, and US8509412B2 — against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America, Inc. The accused product list spans more than 65 Galaxy devices, ranging from budget A-series handsets to flagship S-series and Note-series phones, as well as the Z Flip5 and Z Fold5 foldables.
The case closed on May 13, 2024, just 137 days after filing, via a stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Critically, both sides dismissed with prejudice: Artax relinquished all infringement claims and Samsung dropped all counterclaims it could have brought. A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Artax from re-filing the same claims against Samsung on these patents, and bars Samsung from reviving any invalidity or non-infringement counterclaims asserted in this action.
A resolution within 137 days — before any substantive court orders were publicly docketed — is consistent with a pre-litigation or early-stage confidential settlement, though the public record is silent on financial terms. The breadth of the accused product list and the mutual with-prejudice structure suggest the parties reached a commercially negotiated exit. What remains unknown is whether any license, lump-sum payment, or cross-licensing arrangement underlies the dismissal.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 137 days
137 days — resolved before claim construction or discovery
Dismissed with prejudice: what the mutual Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — stipulated dismissal, no court merits ruling
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement of all parties who have appeared and does not require court approval. It produces no judicial finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is critical: it carries res judicata effect, meaning neither party can relitigate the same claims in federal court. The court itself made no ruling on the merits of the patents.
No merits adjudicationArtax permanently barred from re-asserting these patents against Samsung
By dismissing with prejudice, Artax LLC cannot re-file suit against any Samsung entity on US8107608B2, US9514368B2, or US8509412B2 for the accused Galaxy products or substantially similar conduct. While the patents themselves remain technically valid and enforceable against third parties, Artax’s enforcement option against Samsung is permanently extinguished absent a new infringement basis. The early exit and mutual terms suggest Artax may have received consideration — though this is not confirmed in public filings.
Enforcement extinguished vs. SamsungSamsung exits without invalidity ruling — but also waives its counterclaims
Samsung secured permanent protection from Artax’s infringement claims on these three patents. However, it also voluntarily dismissed its own counterclaims with prejudice — which may include invalidity and non-infringement defenses that, if pressed, could have invalidated the patents entirely. The decision to waive those counterclaims suggests Samsung prioritised certainty and cost efficiency over establishing a precedent that might benefit the broader industry facing the same patents.
Counterclaims waived bilaterallyPatents survive intact — third-party smartphone makers remain exposed
Because no court ruled on validity or claim scope, US8107608B2, US9514368B2, and US8509412B2 emerge from this litigation unchallenged and fully enforceable. Any OEM, component supplier, or licensee operating in the smartphone space whose products overlap with the claimed technology should treat these patents as active litigation risk. The Eastern District of Texas venue, Artax’s willingness to assert a 65-device accused list, and the swift resolution all suggest a well-resourced assertion strategy that may be repeated against other defendants.
Third-party risk unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Artax, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8107608B2, US9514368B2, US8509412B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and US affiliates — global smartphone manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Research America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cecil E. Key | Attorney | Counsel for Artax, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | DiMuroGinsberg, PC | Law Firm | Representing Artax, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for 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 Amos L. Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal text is precise: both Artax and all three Samsung entities acted simultaneously and symmetrically. The phrase ‘all counterclaims that could have been brought’ is notable — it sweeps in any invalidity, non-infringement, or unenforceability defenses Samsung might have raised, not merely those it filed. This mutual structure, executed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), carries immediate res judicata effect without requiring court approval and leaves no public record of financial terms, claim construction positions, or licensing conditions.
US8107608B2, US9514368B2 & US8509412B2 — Smartphone Signal & Interface Technology
The three patents asserted — US8107608B2 (App. No. 11/968630), US9514368B2 (App. No. 14/789688), and US8509412B2 (App. No. 13/373841) — span distinct application filing periods, suggesting a portfolio built across multiple technology generations. Collectively, they appear to cover smartphone-related signal processing, data handling, or user interface functionality, though the absence of a claim construction order means the precise scope of each patent remains judicially undefined. Their asserted application against devices ranging from 2018’s Galaxy S9 to the 2023 Galaxy S23 and Z Fold5 suggests broad independent claims capable of reading on multiple hardware and software generations.
From a competitive intelligence standpoint, a three-patent portfolio capable of covering 65+ Galaxy SKUs across six years of product generations represents meaningful assertion breadth. The patents’ survival without any invalidity challenge — either from Samsung’s waived counterclaims or via PTAB proceedings reflected in public records — means they remain fully enforceable. For any Android OEM or chipset supplier whose products share architectural similarities with the accused Galaxy lineup, these patents warrant proactive FTO analysis and consideration of inter partes review as a defensive measure.
Should your team run an FTO against US8107608B2, US9514368B2 & US8509412B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or selling Android smartphones — or supplying components, SoCs, or software stacks for devices in this category — should assess exposure to these three patents. The accused Samsung product list covers entry-level, mid-range, flagship, and foldable form factors across six model years, suggesting the claims are not limited to premium hardware. If your product shares signal processing architecture, image handling pipelines, or interface logic with Samsung’s Galaxy lineup, a gap in your FTO analysis is a commercial liability.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map independent and dependent claims from US8107608B2, US9514368B2, and US8509412B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and benchmark claim scope against the full prosecution history. With no claim construction record from this case, Eureka’s AI-assisted analysis helps you build your own defensible scope position before Artax’s next enforcement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8107608B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Smartphone Patent Assertions in the Eastern District of Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement suits targeting Android smartphones before Judge Mazzant and other E.D. Texas judges, including cases with similar early-exit dismissal patterns.
What this case signals for the smartphone patent assertion landscape
Artax’s broad accused product list and fast exit in East Texas fits a pattern that IP teams at rival OEMs and suppliers need to monitor closely.
East Texas remains the venue of choice for broad smartphone patent assertions
Filing before Judge Mazzant in the Eastern District of Texas signals deliberate forum selection. E.D. Texas retains plaintiff-favourable procedural timelines and a well-developed patent docket. OEMs and component makers should factor this venue risk into their patent clearance and litigation budgeting for products sold into the US market.
A 65-device accused list with three patents suggests a licensing-first strategy
Asserting three patents across the entirety of Samsung’s Galaxy portfolio — from entry-level A03 to foldable Z Fold5 — maximises damages exposure and settlement leverage without requiring detailed claim charts for each model. IP teams at other Android OEMs should assess whether their product lines overlap with the claimed technology in US8107608B2, US9514368B2, and US8509412B2 before Artax files again.
Artax v Samsung — key questions answered
Artax LLC asserted three US patents: US8107608B2 (App. No. 11/968630), US9514368B2 (App. No. 14/789688), and US8509412B2 (App. No. 13/373841). All three were asserted against a list of more than 65 Samsung Galaxy devices spanning the A, S, Note, M, F, and Z series product lines.
The case was dismissed with prejudice by both parties. Under the joint stipulation filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Artax dismissed all infringement claims with prejudice and Samsung dismissed all counterclaims that could have been brought with prejudice. This permanently bars both parties from re-litigating the same claims in federal court.
No. The case closed via mutual stipulated dismissal before any substantive court order was issued on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The patents US8107608B2, US9514368B2, and US8509412B2 emerged from this litigation without any judicial finding on their validity or scope, leaving them fully enforceable against third parties.
The Eastern District of Texas, and specifically Judge Amos L. Mazzant’s docket, is a well-established patent litigation venue favoured by plaintiff patent holders for its experienced patent bench and procedural timelines. PAEs and licensing-focused plaintiffs frequently file in E.D. Texas to leverage venue-specific advantages in scheduling and jury pools, consistent with Artax’s filing strategy here.
The accused product list includes over 65 Samsung Galaxy models: the full Galaxy A series (A03 through A73 5G), Galaxy S series (S9 through S23 Ultra), Galaxy Note series (Note9 through Note20 Ultra 5G), Galaxy M and F series (M14, M34 5G, M54, F54), and foldable devices including the Galaxy Z Flip5 and Galaxy Z Fold5. The breadth of the list spans entry-level to flagship and foldable categories across model years 2018–2023.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.