Hermes IP v. Samsung: Dual-Mic Patent Dispute Ends in With-Prejudice Dismissal
Hermes IP Management LLC asserted three patents covering dual-microphone echo cancellation and noise suppression against Samsung Galaxy A, M, S, and Z Series devices in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice after 385 days, with each side bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
E.D. Tex. Dual-Mic Patent Case Settles Before Claim Construction
Hermes IP Management LLC filed suit on 16 July 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The complaint asserted infringement of three patents — US8537977B2, US9613060B2, and US8855720B2 — directed at dual-microphone audio processing, specifically multi-mic echo cancellation and noise suppression technology embedded in Samsung Galaxy devices running Android 4.4 or later across the A, M, S, and Z Series product lines.
The case closed on 5 August 2025 when the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal 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, meaning Hermes IP is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Samsung. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, suggesting a negotiated resolution rather than a one-sided capitulation.
At 385 days, the case resolved before reaching claim construction or trial, which is consistent with a negotiated settlement reached during early litigation. The with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing arrangement are hallmarks of a confidential licence or business resolution. The public record does not disclose financial terms or licence scope, so the commercial outcome for Hermes IP remains unknown.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 385 days
385 days from filing to closure — below the median E.D. Tex. patent trial lifecycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — joint stipulation dismissal
A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the written consent of all parties who have appeared. It is a procedural vehicle commonly used to close cases following settlement negotiations. Because both sides signed, neither party was forced out — the resolution was mutual. The court’s role is ministerial: it accepts and acknowledges the stipulation rather than adjudicating the merits.
Consensual procedural exitWith prejudice bars Hermes IP from re-filing these claims
A with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes the asserted claims permanently against Samsung. Hermes IP cannot refile the same infringement claims under US8537977B2, US9613060B2, or US8855720B2 against Samsung in any U.S. court. This is distinct from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The with-prejudice designation typically accompanies a licence grant or monetary settlement that satisfies the plaintiff’s commercial objectives.
No re-filing against SamsungHermes IP exits with finality — likely in exchange for commercial terms
For Hermes IP, agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal suggests it obtained something of value — most plausibly a licence fee or royalty arrangement. The mutual cost-bearing clause indicates Hermes IP did not extract an exceptional case finding or fee award, but also was not ordered to pay Samsung’s costs. The three asserted patents remain in force and may still be asserted against other parties in the smartphone and mobile audio sector.
Patents survive; Samsung claims extinguishedSamsung’s Galaxy product lines cleared; other OEMs remain exposed
The dismissal with prejudice resolves Samsung’s exposure on these three patents for the named product lines. However, the patents are not invalidated — they remain active and enforceable against other manufacturers deploying dual-microphone echo cancellation or noise suppression in Android devices. OEMs offering competing Galaxy-class handsets with similar multi-mic audio architectures should assess their freedom-to-operate position against US8537977B2, US9613060B2, and US8855720B2.
Third-party OEM exposure persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | HERMES IP MANAGEMENT LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8537977B2, US9613060B2, and US8855720B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Global consumer electronics manufacturer and its U.S. sales subsidiarySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Neal Massand | Attorney | Counsel for HERMES IP MANAGEMENT LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas Najera | Attorney | Counsel for HERMES IP MANAGEMENT LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Neal Massand | Law Firm | Representing HERMES IP MANAGEMENT LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing HERMES IP MANAGEMENT LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jin-Suk Park | 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 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 (Wash DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | 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 accepting the Joint Stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is non-adjudicative — no claim was construed, no validity ruling was issued, and no infringement finding was made. The operative effect is purely procedural: all asserted claims are extinguished as between these parties. The with-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing clause are the two substantive signals available from the public record, both consistent with a negotiated resolution. Neither party received a judicial merits ruling they can cite in future proceedings.
US8537977B2, US9613060B2 & US8855720B2 — Dual-Mic Echo Cancellation & Noise Suppression
The three asserted patents — US8537977B2 (App. No. 12/525050), US9613060B2 (App. No. 11/911879), and US8855720B2 (App. No. 13/466699) — collectively address the capture, filtering, and processing of audio signals using dual or multiple microphones. The technology targets echo cancellation and noise suppression in mobile communication contexts, a foundational capability in modern smartphones. The staggered application numbers suggest the patents were filed across different development cycles, potentially providing layered claim coverage over evolving implementations of multi-mic audio architectures.
Dual-microphone noise suppression is now standard in flagship and mid-range Android devices, making this patent family strategically significant for the broader mobile OEM ecosystem. Samsung’s Galaxy A, M, S, and Z Series were specifically named, spanning budget to foldable form factors — indicating the patents are asserted broadly rather than against niche products. For competitors shipping Android 4.4 or later devices with multi-mic audio, these patents represent a recurring enforcement risk. The unresolved validity of all three patents following this dismissal means they retain full enforcement potential against third-party implementers.
Should your team run an FTO against US8537977B2, US9613060B2, and US8855720B2?
Any organisation developing or shipping devices with dual-microphone echo cancellation, noise suppression, or multi-mic audio processing — including Android handset OEMs, hearable device makers, voice assistant hardware vendors, and automotive infotainment system manufacturers — should assess their exposure to this patent family. The Hermes IP v. Samsung outcome confirms these patents are being actively asserted and have sufficient perceived validity to generate commercial resolutions without a merits ruling.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US8537977B2, US9613060B2, and US8855720B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art relevant to validity, and flag design-around opportunities in dual-mic signal processing. With all three patents remaining active and the Samsung resolution providing no invalidity shield for third parties, an FTO analysis is a commercially prudent step before product launch or expansion into the Android audio processing space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8537977B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: dual-mic audio processing disputes in E.D. Tex.
Browse related patent infringement cases involving dual-microphone echo cancellation and noise suppression technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas against mobile device OEMs.
What this case signals for the mobile audio IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit in E.D. Tex. before claim construction typically signals a licence deal — and leaves the asserted patents intact for future enforcement.
With-prejudice, pre-Markman resolution is a classic licensing signal
When a patent assertion entity and a major OEM jointly stipulate dismissal with prejudice before claim construction, the most commercially rational explanation is a licence agreement. The mutual cost-bearing clause removes any inference of weakness on either side. Companies in the dual-mic audio space should treat this outcome as evidence that Hermes IP’s patents have perceived licensing value.
Three active patents mean continued enforcement risk across the Android OEM market
US8537977B2, US9613060B2, and US8855720B2 are unaffected by this dismissal in terms of validity or enforceability. Any OEM shipping Android 4.4-or-later devices with dual-microphone echo cancellation or noise suppression — including handset makers, hearable device manufacturers, and voice assistant hardware vendors — should review their exposure to these patent families.
HERMES v Samsung — key questions answered
Hermes IP Management LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on 16 July 2024, asserting three patents covering dual-microphone echo cancellation and noise suppression. The case was dismissed with prejudice on 5 August 2025 pursuant to a joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs.
Hermes IP asserted US8537977B2, US9613060B2, and US8855720B2. All three patents relate to multi-microphone audio processing, specifically dual-mic echo cancellation and noise suppression. The products accused included Samsung Galaxy A, M, S, and Z Series devices running Android 4.4 or later with dual-microphone hardware.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Hermes IP from reasserting the same claims under US8537977B2, US9613060B2, and US8855720B2 against Samsung in U.S. courts. The underlying patents are not invalidated and remain enforceable against other parties. The dismissal provides no invalidity shield to third-party OEMs facing similar claims from Hermes IP.
The public record does not disclose financial terms. The joint stipulation states only that ‘the above-captioned case has been resolved,’ which is consistent with a confidential licence or settlement agreement. The with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing clause are the only publicly available signals, both consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to Samsung and the specific product lines named in the complaint. US8537977B2, US9613060B2, and US8855720B2 remain active and enforceable. Other manufacturers shipping Android devices with dual-microphone echo cancellation or noise suppression — across smartphones, hearables, tablets, and voice assistant hardware — remain potentially exposed and should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against these patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.