Baker Laser Technology v. Samsung: Laser Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Baker Laser Technology, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US9185373B2 against the Samsung Premiere LSP7T and SPLPU7D laser projectors. The parties jointly moved to dismiss with prejudice after 348 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Laser patent dispute against Samsung ends by agreement in EDTX
Baker Laser Technology, LLC filed suit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. on April 25, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00436), asserting infringement of US9185373B2. The accused products were the Samsung Premiere LSP7T and The Premiere 7 SPLPU7D — Samsung's consumer ultra-short-throw laser projector lineup. Baker Laser Technology was represented by Kent & Risley LLC; Samsung was represented by Gillam & Smith, LLP and Vanguard Crest P.C.
The case closed on April 8, 2026, 348 days after filing. The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed with Prejudice. The docket order states that the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss representing that the case had been resolved, and the court granted the motion, dismissing all claims with prejudice with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
A dismissal with prejudice reached by joint motion after approximately 11 months — before any trial or significant public merits ruling — is consistent with a negotiated resolution, though the specific terms are not disclosed in the available record. The EDTX venue, a perennially active patent forum, and the involvement of high-profile consumer electronics products may have shaped the trajectory. What drove the parties to resolve before claim construction or trial, and on what commercial terms, is not reflected in the public docket.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 348 days
348 days from filing to dismissal — resolved before trial in EDTX
US9185373B2 — laser projection display technology
Any company designing, manufacturing, or selling laser projection display products — particularly ultra-short-throw laser projectors — in the US market should assess their exposure to US9185373B2. This case demonstrates that the patent has been asserted against a major OEM's commercial product line in a plaintiff-friendly venue. Ignoring it before product launch creates significant litigation risk, especially if your product architecture shares features with the Samsung Premiere series.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order granting the Joint Motion to Dismiss records that the parties represented the case had been 'resolved' — without specifying the nature of that resolution. The dismissal with prejudice is entered on joint motion, extinguishing all claims and causes of action between the parties on the merits. Each party bearing its own costs is the only express term in the order; all other terms, if any, are not disclosed in the available record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint resolution means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice ends all claims permanently
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law — Baker Laser Technology cannot refile the same infringement claims against Samsung on US9185373B2 arising from the same accused products. The joint motion indicated the case had been 'resolved,' and the court granted it in full. The order also denied all pending relief as moot, leaving no live issues before the court.
No refiling permittedBaker Laser forfeits right to refile these specific claims
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Baker Laser Technology permanently relinquished its ability to pursue the asserted claims against Samsung for the accused Premiere products under US9185373B2. The patent itself remains in force and could theoretically be asserted against other parties, but the specific claims against Samsung arising from these products are extinguished. The specific terms of any resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
Patent survives; these claims closedSamsung obtains closure on Premiere projector infringement claims
Samsung Electronics secured a with-prejudice dismissal, meaning it faces no future litigation risk from Baker Laser Technology on these specific claims regarding the LSP7T and SPLPU7D products. Each party bearing its own costs and fees means Samsung absorbed its own defence costs. The resolution provides commercial certainty for Samsung's Premiere laser projector line in the US market. The specific terms of any resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
Premiere line cleared of these claimsLaser projection IP remains an active enforcement area
This case signals that US9185373B2 was asserted as a credible threat against a major consumer electronics OEM's flagship laser projector products in EDTX. While this particular dispute is closed, the patent remains active and the broader laser projection display sector — including ultra-short-throw technology — continues to attract patent assertion activity. Manufacturers operating in this space should monitor the patent and related portfolio filings.
Laser projection IP risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Baker Laser Technology, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cortney Alexander | Attorney | Counsel for Baker Laser Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kent & Risley LLC (Alpharett) | Law Firm | Representing Baker Laser Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Donald R. McPhail | 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 law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Vanguard Crest P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the laser projection display IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from the Baker Laser v. Samsung dispute — covering portfolio activity, technology filing trends, and white space in laser projection display innovation.
Baker Laser Technology's assertion portfolio in laser display
Baker Laser Technology's enforcement of US9185373B2 against Samsung suggests a focused assertion strategy in laser projection. Mapping Baker Laser's full patent portfolio reveals whether further related patents exist that could be asserted against other laser projector OEMs or component suppliers. Portfolio depth in this area is a leading indicator of future enforcement actions.
Portfolio assertion riskFiling trends in ultra-short-throw laser projection technology
Ultra-short-throw laser projectors represent one of the fastest-growing segments in consumer display technology. Patent filings in this space — covering laser light sources, optical path design, speckle reduction, and image processing — have intensified as brands compete for the home cinema and commercial display markets. Tracking filing activity by Samsung, LG, Epson, Hisense, and emerging Chinese OEMs reveals competitive IP positioning.
UST laser projector filingsSamsung's defensive patent position in laser display
Samsung Electronics holds a substantial patent portfolio in display technology, including laser and LED-based projection systems. Analysing Samsung's own filings in laser projection — particularly around the Premiere product architecture — reveals the degree to which Samsung has built defensive IP around its commercial products and where potential licensing leverage or design-around opportunities exist for third parties.
Samsung laser display IPInnovation gaps adjacent to US9185373B2 in laser projection
Identifying the claims landscape surrounding US9185373B2 — including continuation applications, related art, and areas not yet densely patented — can surface white-space R&D opportunities in laser projection. Areas such as adaptive speckle control, ambient light rejection, and AI-driven image calibration for laser projectors represent potentially lower-crowding innovation zones for R&D teams.
Laser projection white spaceSimilar laser projection and display technology patent cases in EDTX
Explore comparable patent infringement actions in laser display and projection technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas against consumer electronics OEMs.
What this case signals for the laser projection IP landscape
A swift joint dismissal with prejudice against Samsung in EDTX highlights the enforcement dynamics in consumer laser projection technology.
US9185373B2 remains live and assertable against other laser projector OEMs
The with-prejudice dismissal only extinguishes claims against Samsung for the Premiere products. The patent is not invalidated or licensed on the public record. Other manufacturers of ultra-short-throw or laser projection display products should treat US9185373B2 as a live enforcement risk and conduct FTO analysis accordingly.
EDTX remains a high-pressure venue for consumer electronics patent disputes
The Eastern District of Texas continues to attract patent infringement filings against major electronics OEMs. The speed of resolution here — under 12 months — suggests defendants face significant incentive to resolve early. IP teams at consumer electronics companies should have EDTX-specific litigation readiness strategies in place.
Baker v Samsung — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by order of the Eastern District of Texas on April 8, 2026. The court granted a joint motion filed by both parties, which represented that the case had been resolved. All claims were dismissed with prejudice, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms of any resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
The accused products were the Samsung Premiere LSP7T and The Premiere 7 SPLPU7D — Samsung's ultra-short-throw consumer laser projector products. These were identified in the infringement action filed by Baker Laser Technology, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas.
A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Baker Laser Technology's ability to refile the same infringement claims against Samsung regarding the accused Premiere products. However, it does not invalidate US9185373B2. The patent remains in force and could potentially be asserted against other parties. Only the specific claims against Samsung for these products are permanently closed.
Baker Laser Technology was represented by attorney Cortney Alexander of Kent & Risley LLC. Samsung Electronics was represented by Donald R. McPhail and Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith, LLP, with Vanguard Crest P.C. also listed as defendant counsel.
The case was filed on April 25, 2025, and closed on April 8, 2026 — a duration of 348 days, or approximately 11.5 months. The case resolved by joint motion to dismiss before any trial, which is consistent with an early resolution in EDTX patent litigation, though the factors driving the timeline are not disclosed in the public record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.