Cerence v. Samsung: Five Voice AI Patents Dismissed With Prejudice After 790 Days
Cerence Operating Company, a specialist voice AI licensor, sued Samsung Electronics over five patents covering mobile speech and voice interaction technology, targeting Galaxy devices including the Note 10+. The case resolved after 790 days in the Eastern District of Texas when the parties filed a joint notice of dismissal — with Cerence’s infringement claims extinguished with prejudice.
Voice AI Licensor Exits Samsung Litigation With Prejudice After Two Years
Cerence Operating Company filed suit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on October 13, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00482), asserting infringement of five U.S. patents spanning voice recognition, speech processing, and mobile voice interaction technology. The accused products included the Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ and broader Samsung Galaxy mobile device lineup — flagship consumer hardware embedded with voice assistant functionality.
The case closed on December 11, 2025 when the parties filed a Joint Notice of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted the notice and dismissed all of Cerence’s infringement claims with prejudice — permanently extinguishing those specific claims — while Samsung’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Samsung’s ability to re-raise those arguments in future proceedings. Each party bears its own costs and fees.
The 790-day duration suggests the litigation progressed well beyond initial pleadings before the parties reached resolution, consistent with a settlement negotiated after substantial discovery or claim construction activity. The with-prejudice dismissal of Cerence’s claims is the operative concession: Cerence cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Samsung on these five patents. The financial terms, if any, remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 790 days
790 days — longer than the E.D. Texas median for patent cases that settle pre-trial
Rule 41 joint dismissal: what the asymmetric prejudice terms mean for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint stipulated dismissal by agreement
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires a signed stipulation from all parties who have appeared, giving it binding force without a court merits ruling. Here, the court accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally closing the case. Critically, the dismissal is asymmetric: plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice; defendant’s counterclaims without. This structure is a hallmark of negotiated resolution rather than unilateral abandonment.
Stipulated — no merits adjudicationWith-prejudice dismissal bars Cerence from re-filing these claims against Samsung
Cerence’s decision to accept dismissal with prejudice on all five asserted patents against Samsung is legally final. The doctrine of res judicata will bar Cerence from asserting the same patent claims arising from the same accused Galaxy products in a future suit. However, these patents remain enforceable against other defendants. Whether Cerence received a lump-sum or ongoing royalty payment as part of a confidential settlement is not discernible from the public record.
Claims extinguished vs. Samsung onlySamsung’s counterclaims survive — invalidity challenges remain available
Samsung’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims — which likely included invalidity and non-infringement arguments — were dismissed without prejudice. This preserves Samsung’s optionality: if Cerence asserts the same patents against Samsung in a different context, or against Samsung’s supply chain partners, Samsung retains the ability to re-raise its invalidity positions. Samsung is not bound by any merits finding on the five patents.
Counterclaims preserved without prejudiceCerence’s voice AI portfolio remains live — other OEMs face unchanged enforcement risk
The Samsung-specific dismissal does not affect the enforceability of Cerence’s five patents against other mobile OEMs, automotive infotainment manufacturers, or voice assistant platform vendors. Companies building speech recognition or voice interaction features into consumer electronics should treat these patents as active enforcement assets. The asymmetric dismissal structure suggests Cerence negotiated from a position that preserved its broader licensing programme.
Portfolio enforcement risk unchangedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cerence Operating Company | Company | Voice AI software licensor — holder of US7395078B2 and four further speech technology patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and U.S. subsidiary — manufacturer of Galaxy mobile devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew D. Weiss | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin T. Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bradley A. Hyde | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel Benjamin Kolko | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Buczko | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Shrin Tsuei | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan D Link | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mackenzie Paladino | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc A. Fenster | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Minna Jay | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Anthony Kroeger | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Qi Tong | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shani M. Tutt | Attorney | Counsel for Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles) | Law Firm | Representing Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Albert John Boardman | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ali R. Sharifahmadian | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy L. DeWitt | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Argirenia Zervos | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bill Trac | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel S. Shimell | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Darin W. Snyder | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Doug Clark | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Frances Mackay | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hyun Min Han | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James S. Blackburn | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffery Derek Baxter | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jin-Suk Park | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyla Butler | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Li Guo | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Luann Loraine Simmons | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Liang | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew M. Wolf | 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 | Patrick Conor Reidy | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Raj Patel | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan M. Nishimoto | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Richard Roberts | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Xin-Yi Zhou | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP – Chicago | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP – Los Angeles | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (Wash DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gilliam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers – San Francisco | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers LLP (LA) | 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 tracks the parties’ joint notice precisely, accepting an asymmetric dismissal structure that is commercially significant. Cerence’s infringement claims are permanently extinguished as to Samsung under the with-prejudice order, triggering res judicata. Samsung’s counterclaims and defenses — almost certainly including invalidity — survive without prejudice, preserving future litigation optionality. The mutual cost-bearing clause and the absence of any judicial merits finding means neither party’s public legal position on the five patents is formally adjudicated.
Five Cerence Voice AI Patents — Mobile Speech Processing & Voice Interaction
The five asserted patents — US7395078B2, US8081993B2, US11393461B2, US11087750B2, and US9026428B2 — collectively cover a broad range of voice AI and speech processing technologies. Application dates span from the mid-2000s through the mid-2010s, reflecting Cerence’s origins in Nuance Communications’ automotive and mobile voice division. The portfolio addresses core layers of voice interaction: acoustic signal processing, voice command interpretation, natural language understanding, and device-level speech integration.
Cerence’s patents are strategically positioned at the intersection of mobile computing and AI-driven voice interfaces — a technology layer now embedded in virtually every flagship smartphone, smart speaker, and in-vehicle infotainment system. The breadth of the portfolio, spanning five patents with different priority dates and claim scopes, makes claim-by-claim design-arounds difficult. For any company shipping voice assistant functionality in consumer electronics, these patents represent a material freedom-to-operate consideration.
Should you run an FTO against Cerence’s voice AI patent portfolio?
Any organisation developing or licensing speech recognition, voice command processing, natural language understanding, or voice assistant features for mobile devices, automotive infotainment, or smart home products should treat Cerence’s portfolio as a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates Cerence’s willingness to litigate five patents simultaneously in a plaintiff-friendly venue against a major global OEM. Hardware integrators, platform vendors, and SDK developers should all assess exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the five Cerence patents against your product’s technical architecture — identifying which claim elements are implicated by your voice processing pipeline and surfacing prior art that could support invalidity positions. Eureka also tracks Cerence’s full patent family, continuation applications, and any new filings that could extend portfolio reach into adjacent voice AI technology areas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7395078B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Voice AI & Speech Technology Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving voice recognition, speech processing, and mobile AI technologies litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the voice AI and mobile speech IP landscape
Cerence’s E.D. Texas campaign against Samsung illustrates the licensing leverage available to voice AI patent holders — and the structural risks for OEMs.
E.D. Texas remains a high-pressure venue for mobile AI patent assertions
Filing five speech-technology patents in the Eastern District of Texas against a major OEM signals confidence in venue leverage. The 790-day duration and with-prejudice resolution suggests the pressure was sufficient to reach terms. OEMs and voice AI platform integrators should monitor Cerence’s docket for further filings in this venue.
Asymmetric Rule 41 dismissals are a reliable settlement signal
When plaintiff claims are dismissed with prejudice but defendant counterclaims are preserved without prejudice, it strongly suggests the parties reached a financial resolution. The structure protects the defendant’s future invalidity positions while giving the plaintiff finality. IP counsel should flag this pattern when conducting landscape searches on Cerence’s portfolio.
Cerence v Samsung — key questions answered
Cerence sued Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas asserting five voice AI patents against Galaxy mobile devices. After 790 days, the parties filed a joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation. The court dismissed Cerence’s infringement claims with prejudice and Samsung’s counterclaims without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Cerence asserted five U.S. patents: US7395078B2, US8081993B2, US11393461B2, US11087750B2, and US9026428B2. These patents cover voice recognition, speech processing, and voice interaction technologies. The accused products were Samsung Galaxy mobile devices, including the Galaxy Note 10+.
A with-prejudice dismissal is a final, binding termination of Cerence’s specific infringement claims against Samsung on these five patents arising from the accused Galaxy products. Under the doctrine of res judicata, Cerence cannot re-file the same claims against Samsung. The patents remain enforceable against other defendants.
This asymmetric structure is typical of negotiated patent settlements. Dismissing Samsung’s counterclaims without prejudice preserves Samsung’s invalidity and non-infringement arguments for potential future use — for example, in IPR proceedings or if litigation resumes in a different context. It does not reflect a merits determination on those defenses.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to Cerence’s claims against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in this specific case. All five asserted patents remain valid and enforceable against third parties. Cerence can continue to assert them in licensing negotiations or litigation against other mobile OEMs, automotive suppliers, or voice technology platform vendors.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.