Calypso IP v. Samsung — Infringement Action Dismissed With Prejudice After 403 Days
Calypso IP, LLC asserted US6680923B1 against Samsung Electronics and its US subsidiary, targeting over 100 Galaxy smartphone, tablet, and foldable device models. The Eastern District of Texas dismissed all claims with prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs — a resolution pattern consistent with a confidential settlement.
A broad Galaxy portfolio assault ends quietly in East Texas
On July 22, 2024, Calypso IP, LLC filed suit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00568), asserting infringement of US6680923B1. The complaint targeted an exceptionally wide product footprint — over 100 distinct Samsung Galaxy devices spanning the A, C, J, M, Note, S, Tab, and Z Flip series, making this one of the broader device-level assertions seen in the district.
The case closed on August 29, 2025, via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted the stipulation and dismissed all claims and causes of action with prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A with-prejudice dismissal by joint stipulation is a standard vehicle for memorialising a negotiated resolution: Calypso IP is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against Samsung in any future proceeding.
At 403 days from filing to closure, the case resolved without any publicly docketed trial or summary judgment ruling, suggesting the parties reached a resolution well before the case matured to a contested merits stage. The mutual cost-bearing provision is notable — it avoids any admission of prevailing party status by either side. Whether any licence, lump-sum payment, or other commercial consideration changed hands is not disclosed in the public record, which is typical for this class of resolution.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 403 days
403 days — faster than the E.D. Tex. median for patent cases proceeding to trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal — what it means in practice
A stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared. When entered with prejudice, it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently extinguishing the dismissed claims. The court’s role is largely ministerial — it accepts and acknowledges the stipulation rather than independently adjudicating liability. No findings of fact or claim constructions were made.
Permanent bar on re-assertionCalypso IP loses the right to re-sue Samsung on US6680923B1
A with-prejudice dismissal is irrevocable — Calypso IP cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. or Samsung Electronics America, Inc. based on US6680923B1. However, the patent itself remains in force and is fully enforceable against other defendants. The public record does not disclose whether Calypso IP received any financial consideration in exchange for agreeing to dismissal with prejudice.
Claims extinguished vs. Samsung onlySamsung resolves over-100-device exposure without a merits ruling
Samsung secured dismissal of all asserted claims covering its entire Galaxy product line-up — smartphones, tablets, foldables, and enterprise devices — without any court finding of infringement or invalidity. The mutual cost-bearing term avoids any prevailing party determination. Absent a declared invalidity ruling, third parties cannot rely on this outcome to challenge US6680923B1, but Samsung itself is permanently insulated from further suit on these claims.
No infringement finding — full peaceUS6680923B1 survives intact — enforcement risk remains for the sector
Because the dismissal carried no invalidity ruling or claim construction order, US6680923B1 exits this litigation with its legal status unchanged. Other wireless device manufacturers remain potential targets. The breadth of the product list asserted here — spanning budget to flagship and enterprise categories — signals that Calypso IP interprets the patent’s claims broadly. Competitors in the Android and 5G device market should treat this as an active enforcement signal.
Patent still live — sector risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Calypso IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US6680923B1, wireless communication technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. — global consumer electronics and smartphone manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Calypso IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | C. Dale Quisenberry | Attorney | Counsel for Calypso IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason Scott Mcmanis | Attorney | Counsel for Calypso IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Louis Liao | Attorney | Counsel for Calypso IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Alexander Killingsworth | Attorney | Counsel for Calypso IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Weining Bai | Attorney | Counsel for Calypso IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Calypso IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Calypso IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quisenberry Law PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Calypso IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew William Stinson | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian J. Prew | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Julie P. Bookbinder | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kathryn Elizabeth Albanese | 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 | Omar Nesheiwat | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas Pease | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vimal M. Kapadia | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Wen Xue | 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 | Greenberg Traurig PA | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ramey & Flock, PC | 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 court’s order strictly accepts and acknowledges the parties’ joint stipulation — it makes no independent findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The with-prejudice qualifier is dispositive for the parties: all claims are permanently extinguished as between Calypso IP and both Samsung entities. The mutual cost-bearing provision forecloses any prevailing party fee motion. Critically, the absence of a claim construction order or invalidity ruling leaves US6680923B1’s legal strength unchanged for purposes of future enforcement against third parties.
US6680923B1 — Wireless communication protocol technology
US6680923B1, filed under application number US09/577812, covers wireless communication technology originating from the late 1990s to early 2000s development era — a foundational period for mobile data transmission protocols. The patent was asserted against Samsung’s full consumer and enterprise device portfolio, suggesting Calypso IP interprets its claims as reading on core wireless stack functionality present across chipsets regardless of device tier. The B1 designation indicates the patent issued without post-grant amendment.
Patents filed in this application-number range frequently claim protocol-layer or radio-access techniques that predate 4G/LTE standardisation but may nonetheless read on modern implementations through broad functional claim language. For the wireless device sector, this vintage of patent represents persistent enforcement risk: the technology is ubiquitous, design-arounds are costly, and prosecution histories from this era often lack the narrowing amendments introduced by post-KSR claim drafting norms. The Calypso IP enforcement campaign against Samsung’s 100-plus-device lineup demonstrates the patent’s perceived commercial reach.
Should you run an FTO against US6680923B1?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing wireless-enabled mobile devices — smartphones, tablets, wearables, or enterprise handhelds — should treat US6680923B1 as a live enforcement risk following this litigation. The assertion against Samsung’s entire Galaxy ecosystem demonstrates that Calypso IP reads the claims broadly across device tiers and generations. Product teams integrating standard wireless communication stacks, particularly those using chipsets shared with Samsung’s accused portfolio, face materially similar exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map US6680923B1’s claim elements against your specific product architecture, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and benchmark the patent’s citation and litigation history against comparable wireless communication patents. Because no claim construction order emerged from this case, an independent claim analysis is essential before any commercial product launch in this technology space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6680923B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless device patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving wireless communication patent assertions against consumer electronics manufacturers in the Eastern District of Texas, resolved by joint stipulation.
What this case signals for the wireless device IP landscape
A broad, quietly settled assertion in E.D. Tex. leaves US6680923B1 fully intact — with consequences for any manufacturer in its technology space.
East Texas remains the venue of choice for PAE wireless patent enforcement
Calypso IP’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with the district’s continued appeal to patent assertion entities targeting consumer electronics. The filing-to-closure pace of 403 days suggests early resolution pressure was effective — defendants with large product portfolios routinely seek to neutralise broad assertions before costly claim construction proceedings.
Broad product-list assertions concentrate settlement leverage
Naming over 100 devices — from entry-level Galaxy J-series to flagship S20 and Note10 lines — maximises the damages base and forces the defendant to defend an entire ecosystem simultaneously. R&D teams and IP counsel at Android device OEMs should note that US6680923B1 has now been tested in litigation and its holder was willing to assert it at scale.
Calypso v Samsung — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars Calypso IP from re-asserting the same claims in US6680923B1 against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. It does not invalidate the patent, which remains enforceable against other defendants.
Over 100 Samsung Galaxy devices were identified in the complaint, spanning the Galaxy A, C, J, M, Note, S, Tab, and Z series — from entry-level handsets such as the Galaxy J2 Core to flagships including the Galaxy S20 Ultra, Note10+, Galaxy Fold, and Galaxy Z Flip, as well as enterprise devices such as the Galaxy Tab Active Pro.
Not formally. The court made no finding of non-infringement or invalidity. The mutual cost-bearing provision avoids any prevailing party determination. A joint stipulation with prejudice is a standard settlement instrument — the public record does not disclose whether financial consideration was exchanged.
US6680923B1 is a wireless communication patent with an application number (US09/577812) consistent with a late-1990s to early-2000s priority date. Calypso IP’s decision to assert it across 100-plus Galaxy devices suggests the claims are interpreted as covering fundamental wireless protocol or data transmission functionality present in shared chipsets across Samsung’s portfolio.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to Samsung. No invalidity ruling, claim construction order, or prior art determination was entered. US6680923B1 exits this litigation with its enforceability fully intact, and the public record provides no new legal defences that third parties could directly invoke against a future Calypso IP assertion.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.