Avant Location Technologies v. Samsung: 7-Patent Location Tech Dispute Settled in 203 Days
Patent assertion entity Avant Location Technologies filed suit against Samsung Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting seven location-technology patents across Samsung’s Galaxy smartphone, tablet, smartwatch, and earbuds product lines. The case resolved via joint dismissal with prejudice after 203 days, consistent with a confidential settlement covering all claims.
Seven-Patent Location Tech Assertion Against Samsung’s Entire Galaxy Ecosystem
On February 23, 2024, Avant Location Technologies LLC filed an infringement action against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00133), before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Avant asserted seven U.S. patents — US10009720B2, US9042910B2, US8738040B2, US9485621B2, US8934922B2, US9119030B2, and US9622032B2 — all directed at location-technology methods and systems. The accused products spanned Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones and tablets running Android 8 or later, Galaxy Watch devices running Wear OS or Tizen 5.5 or later, and Galaxy Buds+.
The case closed on September 13, 2024, when Judge Gilstrap granted a joint motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The order states that the parties ‘have resolved all claims for relief,’ language that consistently signals a confidential bilateral settlement. Dismissal with prejudice means Avant is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims against Samsung on these seven patents. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, meaning no exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was made.
A resolution in 203 days, before any claim construction ruling or summary judgment briefing, suggests the parties reached commercial terms early — potentially before substantial litigation costs accumulated on either side. The own-costs order is neutral and does not signal weakness in either party’s position. The specific financial terms, any license scope, and whether any cross-licensing or running royalty was agreed upon remain entirely absent from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 203 days
203 days — resolved faster than the E.D. Texas median for multi-patent infringement actions
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Joint dismissal with prejudice ends all claims permanently
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Avant cannot re-assert these seven patents against Samsung for the same accused products. The joint nature of the motion — filed by both parties — strongly suggests a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral concession. The court had no obligation to scrutinise settlement terms before granting the motion.
Permanent bar on re-filingAvant receives a permanent release — and likely a payment
For a patent assertion entity, a joint dismissal with prejudice typically follows receipt of a lump-sum license fee or structured royalty. The speed of resolution — 203 days, pre-claim construction — suggests Avant accepted commercially reasonable terms rather than risk an adverse Markman ruling or inter partes review petition from Samsung. The patents remain in force against third parties; only Samsung gains the benefit of whatever licence was granted.
Likely licensed, not concededSamsung clears seven location patents across its Galaxy ecosystem
Samsung’s agreement to a joint dismissal with prejudice suggests it valued certainty over protracted litigation across a broad product portfolio. Galaxy smartphones, tablets, watches, and earbuds were all in scope, meaning potential damages exposure was significant. The own-costs order preserves Samsung’s ability to argue the patents were weak without an explicit judicial finding either way. Any licence obtained likely covers past and future sales of the accused product lines.
Portfolio-wide coverage likely obtainedSeven location-tech patents remain live threats for other OEMs
A settlement with Samsung does not extinguish Avant’s patents or limit their enforceability against other Android device manufacturers, wearable OEMs, or wireless audio brands. The claims covering Android 8+ devices and Tizen/Wear OS wearables are broad enough to implicate a wide range of competitors. Other OEMs shipping location-enabled Galaxy-comparable devices should treat these seven patents as active assertion risk until they expire or are invalidated via IPR.
Active risk for competing OEMsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Avant Location Technologies, LLC | Company | Location-technology patent assertion entity — holder of US10009720B2 and 6 related 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 Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Enrique William Iturralde | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Daniel Ostling | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julian Glenn Pymento | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justine Minseon Park | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rudolph Fink , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Ellsworth Davis , III | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Davis Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (Rye) | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Davis Firm PC (Longview) | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christine Potkay | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Darryl M. Woo | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Douglas J. Kline | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gabriel Ferrante | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelly Grosshuesch | 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 | Naomi Birbach | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick J. Mccarthy | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Srikanth Reddy | 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 ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Goodwin Procter LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Goodwin Procter LLP – San Francisco | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Goodwin Procter, LLP – Washington DC | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Goodwin Proctor LLP (Boston) | 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 order’s phrasing — ‘the Parties represent that they have resolved all claims for relief’ — is the standard recitation for a confidential settlement preceding a joint Rule 41 dismissal. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently extinguishing Avant’s right to re-assert these seven patents against Samsung on the accused products. The absence of any fee-shifting or exceptional-case finding means neither party’s conduct was formally censured. The financial and licensing terms remain entirely confidential.
US10009720B2 and six related patents — location-technology methods and systems
The seven asserted patents — US10009720B2, US9042910B2, US8738040B2, US9485621B2, US8934922B2, US9119030B2, and US9622032B2 — share a common technical domain: location-determination and location-based service methods for mobile devices. Application numbers indicate filings spanning approximately 2008 (US12/294641) through 2015 (US14/743237), covering successive generations of wireless location technology. The portfolio appears to target both device-side location processing and network-assisted positioning workflows commonly implemented in modern smartphones, tablets, and wearables.
The breadth of accused products — spanning Android smartphones and tablets, Tizen and Wear OS smartwatches, and Bluetooth audio devices — suggests the asserted claims are directed at platform-level location APIs or underlying positioning protocols rather than Samsung-specific implementations. For competitors shipping devices on Android 8+, Tizen 5.5+, or Wear OS, this portfolio represents a live enforcement risk. The settlement with Samsung does not affect the patents’ validity or their enforceability against other OEMs, and Avant’s litigation posture suggests an active licensing program targeting the broader mobile device industry.
Should you run an FTO against US10009720B2 and the Avant location-tech portfolio?
Any organisation developing, manufacturing, or distributing mobile devices, smartwatches, wireless earbuds, or connected IoT products running Android 8+, Tizen 5.5+, or Wear OS should evaluate freedom-to-operate exposure against Avant’s seven-patent portfolio. The platform-version framing of the accused products in this case suggests the asserted claims are not Samsung-specific — meaning substantially identical infringement theories could apply to competing OEMs, chipset vendors, or platform developers shipping location-enabled devices.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map all seven Avant patents against your product’s technical implementation, identify claim elements that overlap with your location-stack architecture, and surface any post-grant proceedings or prior art that could support an IPR petition. Eureka’s portfolio-level analysis also tracks Avant’s broader patent holdings beyond this case, flagging any related continuations or divisionals that may not yet have been asserted but share similar claim scope.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10009720B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar location-technology patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent assertion actions involving location-technology portfolios filed in the Eastern District of Texas against consumer electronics and mobile device manufacturers.
What this case signals for the location-technology IP landscape
A seven-patent assertion settled in under seven months in E.D. Texas signals a well-prepared enforcement strategy and meaningful commercial leverage.
E.D. Texas + Judge Gilstrap remains the forum of choice for PAE assertions
Filing before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas is a deliberate strategic choice — his docket moves quickly and he has extensive Markman experience. The 203-day resolution before any claim construction hearing suggests Samsung calculated that settlement was more efficient than a full Gilstrap-managed litigation cycle, which typically runs 18–24 months to trial.
Seven-patent portfolios signal prepared assertion — monitor Avant’s remaining assets
Asserting seven patents across four distinct product categories in a single action suggests Avant entered with a structured licensing strategy, not speculative litigation. Patent assertion entities that successfully settle broad-portfolio cases against tier-one defendants typically reinvest proceeds into further assertions. Competitors of Samsung in the Android wearables and smartphone space should audit exposure to these seven patents now.
Avant v Samsung — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on September 13, 2024, after the parties filed a joint motion representing that they had resolved all claims for relief. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Avant from re-asserting the same seven patents against Samsung on the accused products.
Avant asserted seven U.S. patents: US10009720B2, US9042910B2, US8738040B2, US9485621B2, US8934922B2, US9119030B2, and US9622032B2. All are directed at location-technology methods and systems for mobile devices. Application filing dates span approximately 2008 to 2015, covering successive generations of wireless location functionality.
The accused products included Galaxy smartphones and tablets running Android 8 or later, Galaxy Watch devices running Wear OS or Tizen 5.5 or later, and Galaxy Buds+. The platform-version framing suggests the asserted claims target OS-level or API-level location features rather than Samsung-specific hardware implementations.
No. A dismissal with prejudice in favour of Samsung only extinguishes claims against Samsung on the accused products. Avant’s seven patents remain fully enforceable against other device manufacturers, platform vendors, or distributors. Other OEMs shipping Android 8+, Tizen 5.5+, or Wear OS location-enabled devices should not assume they are covered by any Samsung licence.
The court’s order that each party bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees means no exceptional-case finding was made under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Samsung did not obtain a judicial declaration that the patents were invalid or that the litigation was frivolous. This preserves Avant’s ability to assert related patents in future actions without an adverse conduct record, and means other defendants cannot rely on this case as evidence of patent abuse.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.