Cobblestone Wireless v. Samsung: Five-Patent Wireless Suit Ends in Settlement
Cobblestone Wireless, LLC filed suit against Samsung Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting five patents covering adaptive wireless resource allocation, beam-shaping, user-focusing, handoff, and multi-network communication. The case resolved after 482 days via a joint motion to dismiss — plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice, signalling a confidential settlement.
NPE targets Samsung’s wireless portfolio in a five-front Texas assault
On June 16, 2023, Cobblestone Wireless, LLC filed an infringement action against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00285), asserting five U.S. patents: US10368361B2, US9094888B2, US7924802B2, US8554196B2, and US8891347B2. The patents collectively cover a range of wireless communication technologies — including adaptive resource allocation, beam-shape cycling for network coverage, user-focusing techniques, handoff between wireless networks, and multi-network wireless systems.
The case closed on October 10, 2024, when the court granted a joint motion to dismiss filed by both parties, who represented that the matter had been ‘resolved.’ Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice — meaning they cannot be re-filed — while defendants’ counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, a cost allocation consistent with negotiated settlements rather than adjudicated outcomes.
The 482-day duration suggests the parties engaged in substantive litigation before reaching resolution — likely encompassing claim construction briefing and early discovery — before arriving at confidential terms. The asymmetric dismissal structure (plaintiff with prejudice, defendants without) is a standard settlement architecture in NPE cases, preserving Samsung’s ability to re-raise invalidity defenses should any related Cobblestone patent resurface. The specific financial terms, if any, remain undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 482 days
482 days — above the ~350-day median for E.D. Tex. patent cases that settle pre-trial
Joint dismissal unpacked: what the asymmetric order means for both sides
With-prejudice dismissal locks Cobblestone out of re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. By agreeing to dismiss its own claims with prejudice, Cobblestone Wireless has permanently relinquished the right to sue Samsung on these specific patents for the same accused conduct. This is the standard mechanism for formalising a patent settlement — payment (if any) flows to the plaintiff in exchange for this irrevocable release.
Dismissed with prejudiceCobblestone likely secured value but surrendered future enforcement rights
Non-practising entities like Cobblestone Wireless typically accept a with-prejudice dismissal only when licensing consideration has been agreed commercially. The public record is silent on financial terms. What is clear: Cobblestone cannot re-assert these five patents against Samsung for the accused products. Whether it retains enforcement rights against other manufacturers in parallel or future actions is unaffected by this order.
Rights to Samsung extinguishedSamsung’s counterclaims survive — a deliberate strategic reserve
Samsung’s invalidity and other counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they were not extinguished. This is a calculated structural choice: should Cobblestone assert any of these patents again against other Samsung entities or products, or should related patents emerge, Samsung retains the ability to re-raise its invalidity positions without being barred. It also preserves IPR petition options for these patents going forward.
Samsung’s defences preservedFive wireless patents remain live enforcement assets against other defendants
This dismissal resolves only the Samsung dispute. All five patents — covering adaptive resource allocation, beam-shaping, user-focusing, wireless handoff, and multi-network systems — remain in force and are potentially assertable against other wireless device makers, chipset vendors, or network operators. Companies commercialising 5G/LTE adaptive antenna or handoff technologies should treat this settlement as a signal that Cobblestone is an active, well-resourced licensor.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cobblestone Wireless, LLC | Company | Wireless NPE and licensing entity — holder of US10368361B2 and four related wireless patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — global consumer electronics and mobile device manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Elizabeth Hayden | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christian W. Conkle | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Ma | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc A. Fenster | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew D. Aichele | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Neil Alan Rubin | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Qi Tong | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Reza Mirzaie | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles) | Law Firm | Representing Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alex Verbin Chachkes | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Iman Lordgooei | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin Hardy | 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 | Nagendra Setty | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sean S. Pak | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Victoria Fishman Maroulis | 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 | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Redwood) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (San Francisco) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Setty Chachkes PLLC | 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 order reflects a privately negotiated resolution dressed in procedural form. The court’s grant of dismissal with prejudice as to plaintiff and without prejudice as to defendants is not a substantive ruling on infringement or validity — it is a consent order. The asymmetric structure is significant: plaintiff’s permanent exit signals agreed consideration, while defendants’ preserved counterclaims function as a contractual safety valve should the patents resurface in related litigation. The ‘each party bears own costs’ clause further corroborates a negotiated exit rather than any adjudicated winner.
US10368361B2 — Adaptive wireless resource allocation across five patent families
The five asserted patents span two decades of wireless communication innovation. US7924802B2 (filed 2008) and US8554196B2 (filed 2011) cover foundational wireless systems and multi-network communication methods. US8891347B2 and US9094888B2 extend into beam-shaping and user-focusing for coverage optimisation — technologies central to LTE-Advanced and 5G NR antenna management. US10368361B2 (filed 2017) targets adaptive communication resource allocation, directly relevant to modern dynamic spectrum sharing and network slicing architectures.
Collectively, the portfolio maps onto the physical and MAC layers of contemporary wireless standards. Beam-cycling and user-focusing patents (US9094888, US7924802) are particularly relevant to massive MIMO deployments, while the handoff patent (US8891347) implicates heterogeneous network (HetNet) architectures used in 5G small-cell deployments. Any OEM, chipset vendor, or mobile network operator commercialising LTE, 5G NR, or Wi-Fi 6 technologies should assess overlap with this portfolio before scaling deployment.
Should you run an FTO against US10368361B2 and the Cobblestone wireless portfolio?
Any company developing or commercialising adaptive wireless resource management, beam-forming antenna systems, wireless handoff protocols, or multi-network device firmware should treat this portfolio as a live FTO priority. Cobblestone’s demonstrated willingness to assert all five patents simultaneously against a Tier 1 defendant like Samsung signals that licensing demand letters to smaller OEMs, chipset integrators, or mobile software vendors are a plausible next step. Early FTO analysis significantly de-risks product launches in the 5G/LTE space.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the five Cobblestone patents against your product specifications, flag claim-level overlap with your wireless stack, and identify prior art that could support IPR petition strategies. Eureka’s claim-charting tools allow R&D and IP teams to run structured freedom-to-operate reviews against US10368361B2, US9094888B2, US7924802B2, US8554196B2, and US8891347B2 in hours rather than weeks — with exportable reports formatted for legal review.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10368361B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless patent NPE cases in E.D. Texas federal courts
Cases involving wireless communication NPE assertions in the Eastern District of Texas, including adaptive resource allocation, beam-forming, and handoff patent disputes.
What this case signals for the wireless networking IP landscape
Cobblestone’s five-patent campaign against Samsung reflects a broader NPE trend targeting wireless stack patents across E.D. Tex.
E.D. Tex. remains the preferred venue for wireless NPE campaigns
Cobblestone’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with the court’s historically plaintiff-friendly procedural environment and dense patent litigation docket. Companies with wireless product lines sold in Texas should monitor this venue closely for related Cobblestone filings — the patent portfolio covers technologies embedded in virtually every modern mobile device.
Adaptive wireless and beam-forming patents are high-value litigation targets
The five asserted patents span 5G-relevant technologies: adaptive resource allocation (US10368361), beam-shape cycling (US9094888), user-focusing (US7924802), multi-network wireless (US8554196), and handoff (US8891347). These map directly onto LTE Advanced and 5G NR implementations, suggesting any manufacturer deploying modern wireless chipsets or base station software faces non-trivial exposure from this portfolio.
Cobblestone v Samsung — key questions answered
Cobblestone Wireless asserted five patents: US10368361B2 (adaptive resource allocation), US9094888B2 (beam-shape coverage), US7924802B2 (user-focusing), US8554196B2 (wireless communication systems), and US8891347B2 (wireless device handoff). All five relate to wireless network communication technologies relevant to LTE and 5G implementations.
The case was resolved via a joint motion to dismiss filed by both parties, who represented the matter had been privately resolved. The court dismissed plaintiff Cobblestone’s claims with prejudice and Samsung’s counterclaims without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The specific financial terms of any settlement are not part of the public record.
A with-prejudice dismissal is a final determination that bars Cobblestone from re-filing the same infringement claims against Samsung on these five patents for the same accused conduct. It is the standard mechanism for finalising a patent licensing settlement, as it gives the defendant a permanent release. Cobblestone retains the right to assert these patents against other defendants unrelated to this action.
Dismissal without prejudice of Samsung’s invalidity counterclaims preserves Samsung’s ability to re-raise those defences in future proceedings, for example if Cobblestone were to assert the same patents against Samsung in a different context or file related continuation patents. This asymmetric structure is a common feature of NPE patent settlements and reflects a negotiated risk allocation rather than any substantive finding on validity.
Yes. The dismissal order resolves only the litigation between Cobblestone and Samsung and does not affect the validity or enforceability of any of the five patents. US10368361B2, US9094888B2, US7924802B2, US8554196B2, and US8891347B2 remain issued U.S. patents and can be asserted against other parties. Companies in the wireless communications sector — particularly those deploying LTE, 5G NR, or heterogeneous network architectures — should monitor these patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.