Cerence v. Samsung: Four Voice AI Patents, Joint Dismissal After 609 Days
Cerence Operating Company filed suit against Samsung Group and Samsung Electronics America in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four voice-processing patents against the Galaxy Note 10+. After 609 days of litigation, both sides jointly dismissed all infringement claims with prejudice — with each party bearing its own costs.
Voice AI patent standoff ends in mutual dismissal with prejudice
Cerence Operating Company — a voice AI software firm spun out of Nuance Communications — filed suit on 15 March 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas against Samsung Group and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The complaint alleged infringement of four U.S. patents covering voice recognition and natural language processing technology, asserted against the Samsung Galaxy Note 10+. Russ August & Kabat LLP led Cerence’s litigation team; Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP represented Samsung.
The case closed on 14 November 2025 via a joint notice of dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All of Cerence’s infringement claims and Samsung’s patent infringement counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-litigation of those specific claims. The parties’ remaining defenses and non-patent counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving some flexibility. The court denied all other pending relief as moot and imposed no fee award on either side.
The 609-day duration — filed through multiple rounds of likely claim construction activity — is consistent with a case that ran through substantial pre-trial proceedings before settlement negotiations concluded. The mutual with-prejudice dismissal of infringement claims and counterclaims, combined with the no-costs order, strongly suggests a confidential settlement was reached, though the public record does not confirm any financial terms. The decision to dismiss without prejudice on remaining defenses may preserve optionality for both parties on non-patent issues.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 609 days
609 days — longer than the median E.D. Tex. patent case before resolution
Joint dismissal with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41 joint dismissal — a consensual, court-accepted exit
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may jointly stipulate to dismiss without a court order. Here the court accepted and acknowledged the notice, converting it into a formal order. Dismissal with prejudice on the infringement claims and counterclaims is a final adjudication on the merits — neither party may refile those specific claims. The without-prejudice dismissal of remaining defenses leaves ancillary matters legally unresolved but practically extinguished.
Consensual exit, full bar on infringement re-filingCerence cannot refile these infringement claims against Samsung
With-prejudice dismissal of Cerence’s claims means the four asserted patents — US7680334B2, US8682671B2, US8914291B2, and US8825486B2 — cannot be re-asserted against Samsung on the same infringement theory. Cerence retains the patents and may enforce them against other parties. The no-costs order avoids any financial penalty. The outcome is consistent with Cerence having negotiated a confidential resolution, though the public record does not confirm this.
Patents retained; Samsung suit permanently closedSamsung’s patent counterclaims also dismissed with prejudice
Samsung filed patent infringement counterclaims during the litigation — unusual in voice AI disputes and suggests Samsung held relevant IP leverage. Those counterclaims were also dismissed with prejudice, meaning Samsung cannot reassert them against Cerence. The symmetric outcome — mutual with-prejudice dismissal and no fee award — is consistent with a negotiated resolution that neutralised both sides’ claims, though no settlement agreement is publicly available.
Counterclaims extinguished; symmetric outcomeCerence’s voice AI patents remain enforceable against the broader market
The dismissal resolves only the Cerence–Samsung dispute. The four voice processing patents survive and remain valid, enforceable assets that Cerence — a dedicated licensing entity — may deploy against other smartphone OEMs, automotive voice assistant vendors, or smart device manufacturers. Companies operating in natural language processing, on-device speech recognition, or voice-command integration should monitor Cerence’s patent portfolio and litigation activity closely.
Patents live; licensing risk persists industry-wideFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cerence Operating Company | Company | Voice AI software company — holder of US7680334B2 and three further voice processing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Group | Company | Samsung Group and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. — global consumer electronics manufacturerSearch 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 | 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 | Linjun Xu | 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 | Ryan Lundquist | 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 ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cerence Operating CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Albert John Boardman | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ali R. Sharifahmadian | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brent P. Ray | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel S. Shimell | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Doug Clark | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jacob Zimmerman | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jin-Suk Park | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew M. Wolf | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick Conor Reidy | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Richard Roberts | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP – Chicago | Law Firm | Representing Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP – Los Angeles | Law Firm | Representing Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (Wash DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gilliam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Zimmerman Firm | Law Firm | Representing Samsung GroupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a fully consensual exit negotiated between parties under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The bifurcated structure — with-prejudice on substantive IP claims and without-prejudice on remaining defenses — is deliberate and legally significant. With-prejudice dismissal functions as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, permanently closing the infringement and counterclaim docket between these specific parties. The no-costs provision suggests neither side sought or obtained a fee-shifting finding, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a litigated outcome. The public record does not disclose financial consideration exchanged, if any.
US7680334B2 and three further Cerence voice AI patents
The four asserted patents — US7680334B2 (App. No. 10/524430), US8682671B2 (App. No. 13/864831), US8914291B2 (App. No. 14/035550), and US8825486B2 (App. No. 14/161535) — cover voice recognition, natural language processing, and speech-to-text technologies developed within the Nuance/Cerence lineage. The application dates span from the mid-2000s to the early 2010s, placing their priority windows during the foundational era of mobile voice assistant development — pre-dating mainstream commercial deployment of Siri and Google Now.
For the voice AI sector, this portfolio represents core infrastructure-layer IP that could read on a wide range of implementations: on-device ASR, cloud-connected NLP pipelines, voice command interpretation, and text-to-speech synthesis in consumer electronics. Cerence’s history as a licensing-focused entity — combined with its automotive and mobile voice AI pedigree — means the portfolio poses structural risk to any OEM or software vendor shipping products with integrated voice functionality, particularly where Nuance-originated technology contributed to the underlying system architecture.
Should you run an FTO against Cerence’s voice AI patent portfolio?
Any company developing or shipping products with voice recognition, natural language processing, or speech-driven interfaces should treat these four patents as a priority FTO target. The Galaxy Note 10+ was the accused product here, but the underlying patents likely read on a broader class of voice-enabled devices — smartphones, smart speakers, in-vehicle infotainment systems, and AI assistants. The E.D. Texas filing confirms Cerence’s willingness to litigate aggressively in a plaintiff-friendly forum.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s voice processing architecture against the claim scope of US7680334B2, US8682671B2, US8914291B2, and US8825486B2 — identifying overlap, design-around opportunities, and prior art that may support validity challenges. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can also alert your team to new Cerence filings or continuation patents that extend this family’s reach.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7680334B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar voice AI patent cases in E.D. Texas and related courts
Explore comparable NLP and voice recognition patent infringement cases litigated in the Eastern District of Texas and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the voice AI and NLP patent landscape
Cerence’s four-patent campaign against Samsung’s flagship device illustrates the growing enforcement pressure in conversational AI and voice processing IP.
Cerence’s patent portfolio is an active enforcement weapon
Cerence spun out of Nuance with a deep portfolio of voice AI patents. This case — four patents, one flagship product, E.D. Tex. forum — is consistent with a systematic licensing campaign. OEMs shipping voice-enabled devices should treat Cerence as a recurring enforcement risk, not a one-off plaintiff.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for voice technology NPEs
The Eastern District of Texas continues to attract patent plaintiffs in software and AI-adjacent domains. Its predictable scheduling, plaintiff-friendly local rules, and jury composition make it a structural advantage. Defendants in any voice AI dispute should factor in this venue dynamic from the outset when assessing litigation risk.
Cerence v Samsung — key questions answered
Cerence filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas on 15 March 2024 asserting four voice AI patents against Samsung’s Galaxy Note 10+. The case closed on 14 November 2025 via a joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal. All infringement claims and Samsung’s patent counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice; remaining defenses were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs.
Cerence asserted US7680334B2 (App. No. 10/524430), US8682671B2 (App. No. 13/864831), US8914291B2 (App. No. 14/035550), and US8825486B2 (App. No. 14/161535). All four cover voice recognition and natural language processing technologies originating from the Nuance/Cerence voice AI lineage.
Dismissed with prejudice means Cerence cannot refile its infringement claims against Samsung under these four patents. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable. Cerence retains the right to assert them against other defendants — including other smartphone OEMs, automotive voice system vendors, or smart device manufacturers.
Samsung’s patent counterclaims — also dismissed with prejudice — are consistent with a defensive cross-licensing strategy. By asserting its own patents, Samsung created bilateral IP exposure that likely influenced settlement negotiations. The symmetric dismissal of both sides’ claims with no fee award suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution, though the public record does not disclose any financial terms.
A 609-day duration before joint dismissal in E.D. Texas suggests the case progressed through significant pre-trial activity — likely including initial disclosures, claim construction briefing, and potentially Markman proceedings — before the parties settled. This level of investment on both sides is consistent with a contested dispute resolved through negotiation rather than early capitulation, though the specific trigger for resolution is not part of the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.