Broadphone v. Samsung: Location Patent Dispute Ends at 917 Days
Broadphone LLC brought a three-patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting signal comparison-based location technology. After 917 days of litigation, the parties jointly moved to close the case — Broadphone’s claims dismissed with prejudice, Samsung’s counterclaims without prejudice.
Three location-tech patents, two Samsung entities, one negotiated exit
Filed on January 3, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas, Broadphone LLC’s infringement action targeted Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. across three patents — US8170583B2, US10341811B2, and US8594698B2 — all directed at signal comparison-based location determining methods. The case was assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-00001, a high-profile docket position in a court long favoured by patent asserters.
The case closed on July 8, 2025 via a joint motion to dismiss, suggesting the parties reached a private resolution. The court granted the motion in full: Broadphone’s claims were dismissed with prejudice — meaning they cannot be re-filed — while Samsung’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Samsung’s ability to pursue those challenges in future proceedings if needed. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, indicating no fee-shifting finding was made.
The 917-day duration suggests substantive engagement before settlement, consistent with a negotiated licence or cross-licence rather than an early capitulation. The asymmetric dismissal terms — plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without — are a common settlement structure that protects the defendant from re-assertion while leaving the defendant’s invalidity counterclaims nominally available. The financial terms of any resolution remain undisclosed on the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 917 days
917 days — roughly 2.5 years, above median for E.D. Texas patent cases
Asymmetric dismissal: what with and without prejudice means for each party
With prejudice dismissal bars Broadphone from re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes — Broadphone cannot bring the same infringement claims on US8170583B2, US10341811B2, or US8594698B2 against Samsung in any future action. This is the standard plaintiff concession in a patent settlement, trading away re-assertion rights in exchange for negotiated consideration.
Plaintiff claims: permanently closedSamsung’s counterclaims survive — dismissed without prejudice
Samsung’s counterclaims — likely including invalidity challenges to Broadphone’s three patents — were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Samsung retains the theoretical right to revive those claims. In practice this preserves Samsung’s leverage and protects against any argument that it waived invalidity defences. It is structurally common in settled patent disputes and does not indicate Samsung pursued or won on the merits.
Defendant optionality preservedNo fee award: each party absorbs its own litigation costs
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This rules out a finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — neither side was sanctioned for litigation conduct. It is consistent with a negotiated exit where the settlement economics absorbed the litigation spend, and neither party had sufficient leverage to extract a fee award as a settlement term.
No § 285 fee awardUndisclosed resolution suggests licensing economics resolved privately
The joint motion language — ‘the above-captioned case has been resolved’ — strongly suggests a private financial arrangement. For the signal-location technology sector, this outcome means Broadphone’s three patents remain valid (never adjudicated invalid) and enforceable against third parties. Companies in adjacent location-technology, wireless positioning, or smartphone navigation supply chains should treat these patents as active enforcement assets.
Patents remain valid and activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Broadphone, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8170583B2, US10341811B2, and US8594698B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Global consumer electronics manufacturer; world’s largest smartphone maker by volumeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam S. Hoffman | Attorney | Counsel for Broadphone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian D. Ledahl | Attorney | Counsel for Broadphone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christian W. Conkle | Attorney | Counsel for Broadphone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc A. Fenster | Attorney | Counsel for Broadphone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Anthony Kroeger | Attorney | Counsel for Broadphone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Qi Tong | Attorney | Counsel for Broadphone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Reza Mirzaie | Attorney | Counsel for Broadphone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shani M. Tutt | Attorney | Counsel for Broadphone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing Broadphone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles) | Law Firm | Representing Broadphone, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander Ernest Middleton | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Lebow | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Colin Dunn | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David S. Chun | 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 | Nancy Attalla | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven Pepe | 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 | Ropes & Gray LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ropes & Gray LLP (East Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ropes & Gray LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ropes & Gray LLP (New York) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint motion verdict language is precise and asymmetric: Broadphone’s claims are dismissed with prejudice — a permanent bar on re-assertion — while Samsung’s counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, preserving theoretical revival rights. The phrase ‘the case has been resolved’ confirms a private agreement exists, though its financial terms are not on the public record. The absence of any fee award or prevailing-party designation means neither side can claim a litigation win; the outcome is consistent with a negotiated licence or structured settlement reached after substantive litigation activity spanning nearly three years.
US8170583B2, US10341811B2 & US8594698B2 — Signal Comparison Location Methods
The three patents at issue — US8170583B2 (App. No. 12/720362), US10341811B2 (App. No. 14/085603), and US8594698B2 (App. No. 13/448309) — cover signal comparison-based location determining methods. These patents address how wireless devices identify and calculate geographic position by comparing received signal characteristics, a core technology underpinning indoor positioning, geofencing, and mobile location services in smartphones and IoT devices.
Signal-comparison location technology sits at the intersection of cellular, Wi-Fi, and sensor-fusion positioning — a field that has grown strategically critical as smartphones, wearables, and connected infrastructure depend on accurate indoor and transitional-zone location data. Broadphone’s ability to assert three patents in this family simultaneously against a tier-one defendant like Samsung suggests the portfolio was structured for maximum licensing leverage across handset, platform, and network layers.
Should your team run an FTO against US8170583B2, US10341811B2 & US8594698B2?
Any company developing or commercialising signal comparison-based location features — including indoor positioning, Wi-Fi RTT, cellular triangulation, or sensor-fusion navigation — in smartphones, IoT devices, or connected vehicles should assess these three patents. Broadphone’s willingness to litigate against Samsung for nearly three years, and the absence of any invalidity ruling, confirms the portfolio remains enforceable. A clean FTO analysis is essential before product launch or platform integration.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s location-determination architecture against the claim scope of US8170583B2, US10341811B2, and US8594698B2, surface related continuations or divisionals in the Broadphone portfolio, and flag prior art that could support an IPR petition. With no claim construction order in the public record from this case, Eureka’s AI analysis provides the most current independent assessment of claim scope risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8170583B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar signal-location patent cases in E.D. Texas and beyond
Explore comparable signal comparison and wireless location patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas against consumer electronics defendants.
What this case signals for the wireless location-tech IP landscape
A quiet dismissal after 917 days rarely means nothing happened. Here is what practitioners and product teams should take away.
Broadphone’s patents survived without an invalidity ruling
Because the case settled before any claim construction ruling or summary judgment on validity, US8170583B2, US10341811B2, and US8594698B2 emerge without a judicial invalidity finding. Third parties cannot rely on this litigation as prior art clearance. Any company deploying signal comparison-based location methods in connected devices should assess FTO exposure independently.
E.D. Texas remains a live venue risk for location-tech defendants
Broadphone’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas for a January 2023 filing reflects the continued strategic value of that court for patent asserters. Samsung’s engagement for 917 days — rather than early transfer or motion to dismiss — suggests the venue held. Product teams and in-house counsel at smartphone and IoT device companies should monitor new E.D. Texas filings against these patent families.
Broadphone v Samsung — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice as to Broadphone’s claims and without prejudice as to Samsung’s counterclaims, pursuant to a joint motion filed by both parties. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The dismissal language confirms the dispute was privately resolved, though financial terms were not disclosed.
Broadphone asserted three US patents: US8170583B2 (App. No. 12/720362), US10341811B2 (App. No. 14/085603), and US8594698B2 (App. No. 13/448309). All three are directed at signal comparison-based location determining methods used in wireless and mobile devices.
Dismissal with prejudice is a permanent bar: Broadphone cannot re-file the same infringement claims based on these three patents against Samsung in any future proceeding. It is the standard plaintiff concession in a patent settlement. However, it does not affect Broadphone’s ability to assert these patents against other defendants.
Samsung’s counterclaims — likely including invalidity challenges — were dismissed without prejudice as part of the negotiated resolution. This structure preserves Samsung’s theoretical right to revive those claims in a future proceeding if needed, and is a common settlement mechanism that protects the defendant from waiving invalidity defences while closing the active case.
Yes. Because the case settled before any claim construction ruling or final judgment on validity, all three patents — US8170583B2, US10341811B2, and US8594698B2 — emerge without a judicial invalidity finding and remain enforceable against third parties. Companies in the wireless positioning, smartphone, or IoT location-services sectors should not treat this settlement as prior art clearance.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.