iCashe v. Samsung: 7-Patent NFC Pay Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice After 708 Days
iCashe, Inc. filed suit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting seven patents covering NFC- and TVMF-based mobile payment technology against Samsung Pay across the Galaxy smartphone, tablet, smartwatch, and wearable lineup. The case closed after 708 days when iCashe voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
iCashe's 7-Patent Samsung Pay Challenge Ends Without Adjudication
On June 6, 2024, iCashe, Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00429) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The complaint asserted seven U.S. patents — US9483722B2, US11694053B2, US9122965B2, US9208423B1, US11270174B2, US8403219B2, and US9202156B2 — covering NFC- and TVMF-based mobile payment functionality, targeting Samsung Pay as implemented across a broad range of Galaxy smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, and wearables.
The recorded Basis of Termination is Dismissed with Prejudice. The docket order, entered May 15, 2026, accepts and acknowledges an unopposed Motion and Stipulation to Dismiss filed by iCashe pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing all claims against both Samsung entities with prejudice. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and all pending relief not explicitly granted was denied as moot.
The case ran for 708 days before resolution — a duration that suggests meaningful litigation activity occurred before the parties reached this juncture. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, iCashe is barred from re-filing the same claims against Samsung on these seven patents. The specific terms, if any, underlying the parties' agreement to dismiss are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 708 days
708 days from filing to dismissal — above median for E.D. Tex. patent cases
US9483722B2 — NFC and TVMF mobile payment technology (and 6 further patents)
Any company building or shipping NFC- or TVMF-based mobile payment functionality — whether in smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, or other wearables — should treat the iCashe portfolio as an active FTO consideration. This case targeted Samsung Pay across virtually the entire Galaxy device range, and the with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the Samsung dispute. The seven patents remain enforceable against other implementers.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order accepts and acknowledges an unopposed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal, expressly stating that all claims are dismissed with prejudice and that each party bears its own costs. No merits ruling, claim construction, or validity finding was issued. The with-prejudice characterisation is authoritative: it precludes iCashe from re-asserting these seven patents against Samsung in any future action on the same claims.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice: a final, merits-barring end
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a final disposition. It operates as an adjudication on the merits, meaning iCashe cannot bring the same claims on these seven patents against Samsung again. The motion was stipulated and unopposed, and the court accepted and acknowledged it — closing the case with no remaining parties or claims.
Claim-barring dismissaliCashe surrenders its right to re-litigate these claims against Samsung
By dismissing with prejudice, iCashe permanently forecloses any further assertion of these seven patents against Samsung on the same theories. The court also denied all pending relief as moot, leaving no interim rulings in iCashe's favour on the record. The specific terms of any arrangement between the parties that may have preceded this dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record.
No further Samsung claimsSamsung exits with no liability finding and no adverse ruling
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. face no court-ordered liability, no injunction, and no damages award. The with-prejudice dismissal provides Samsung with a strong procedural bar against any re-filed iCashe action on these same patents. Each party bears its own costs, so Samsung incurs no fee-shifting exposure from this resolution.
No liability, costs absorbedNFC payment patent enforcement: what this outcome signals for the sector
A with-prejudice dismissal after nearly two years of litigation — without a merits ruling — leaves the validity and scope of iCashe's seven NFC/TVMF patents unresolved in court. Other Samsung Pay competitors or NFC payment implementers cannot rely on this outcome as prior art invalidation or a claim-construction ruling. The patents remain in force and could, in principle, be asserted against other parties.
Patents unresolved on meritsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | iCashe, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron R. Fahrenkrog | Attorney | Counsel for iCashe, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for iCashe, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Derrick Carman | Attorney | Counsel for iCashe, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Emily Tremblay | Attorney | Counsel for iCashe, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Garrett C. Parish | Attorney | Counsel for iCashe, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jessica Lee Gutierrez | Attorney | Counsel for iCashe, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Logan James Drew | Attorney | Counsel for iCashe, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Prateek Neil Viswanathan | Attorney | Counsel for iCashe, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Jones | Attorney | Counsel for iCashe, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing iCashe, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Robins Kaplan, LLP | Law Firm | Representing iCashe, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Robins Kaplan LLP (Minneapolis) | Law Firm | Representing iCashe, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander Ernest Middleton | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Lebow | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Briana Niu | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David S. Chun | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Fan Zhang | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hyun-Joong Kim | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Lawrence Davis , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Travis Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jolene L. Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kathryn C. Thornton | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Richard Shapiro | 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 Joseph Lavery | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven Pepe | 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 | Morrison & Foerster LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the NFC and mobile payment IP space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from iCashe's assertion against Samsung Pay — covering filing trends, portfolio positioning, and white-space opportunities in contactless mobile payment technology.
iCashe's 7-patent NFC/TVMF family: enforcement breadth and prosecution continuations
iCashe's portfolio spans application numbers from 2012 (US13/651365) to 2021 (US17/179237), suggesting active continuation prosecution over nearly a decade. This multi-generation filing strategy is designed to maintain claim coverage as NFC payment architectures evolve. Monitoring iCashe's prosecution pipeline for new continuations or divisionals is advisable for any NFC payment implementer.
Active continuation familyNFC and TVMF payment patent filing trends in smartphones and wearables
The inclusion of TVMF alongside NFC in the asserted claims points to a contested IP landscape around alternative contactless payment modalities. As smartwatch and wearable payment adoption grows, patent filings covering secure element integration, tokenisation, and short-range transmission methods are increasing. R&D teams should map their implementations against both NFC and magnetic secure transmission claim families.
NFC + TVMF filing surgeSamsung's defensive patent position in NFC payment and Galaxy ecosystem
Samsung Electronics holds a substantial patent portfolio in NFC, secure element, and mobile payment technologies. The company's ability to mount a defence involving three law firms against seven iCashe patents reflects deep in-house and external IP resources. Competitors evaluating NFC payment development should assess Samsung's own filing activity in this domain as both a prior-art reference and a cross-licence consideration.
Samsung NFC portfolio depthAdjacent R&D opportunities: biometric-NFC payment fusion and wearable form factors
The iCashe portfolio focuses on NFC/TVMF transaction and credential management. Adjacent claim spaces — including biometric-gated NFC payment authorisation, ultra-wideband (UWB) proximity payment, and multi-device payment orchestration for wearables — appear less densely covered by the asserted patents. These represent potential white-space areas for R&D teams seeking freedom to operate while innovating in contactless payment.
Biometric NFC white spaceSimilar NFC mobile payment patent cases in E.D. Texas and federal courts
Cases involving NFC and contactless mobile payment patent assertions against smartphone and wearable OEMs in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable venues.
What this case signals for the NFC mobile payment IP landscape
Seven asserted patents, nearly two years of E.D. Tex. litigation, and a with-prejudice exit — here is what practitioners and product teams should take away.
iCashe's NFC patents remain in force and could target other implementers
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the Samsung dispute. No court has ruled on the validity or scope of the seven asserted patents. Any company implementing NFC- or TVMF-based mobile payment functionality — in smartphones, wearables, or tablets — should treat these patents as active enforcement risk until proven otherwise.
E.D. Tex. NFC payment cases rarely reach trial — monitor early dismissal patterns
This case closed without a claim-construction ruling or validity adjudication reaching the public record. That pattern is consistent with pre-trial resolution in the Eastern District. IP teams tracking NFC payment enforcement should build monitoring workflows rather than waiting for trial-level precedent that may never materialise.
iCashe v Samsung — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 15, 2026, pursuant to an unopposed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation filed by plaintiff iCashe, Inc. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. No merits ruling was issued.
iCashe asserted seven U.S. patents: US9483722B2, US11694053B2, US9122965B2, US9208423B1, US11270174B2, US8403219B2, and US9202156B2. The patents cover NFC- and TVMF-based mobile payment technologies relevant to Samsung Pay across Galaxy smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, and wearables.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Rule 41. iCashe is barred from re-asserting the same claims under these seven patents against Samsung in any future action. The patents themselves remain enforceable against third parties, but Samsung obtains a strong procedural bar against iCashe re-litigation.
No. The case ended without a claim-construction ruling, validity determination, or damages award appearing in the public record. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the dispute between iCashe and Samsung; it does not adjudicate the merits of the patent claims for any other purpose.
The accused products identified in the case include Samsung Galaxy S, A, Note, Z, XCover, and Tab devices, Galaxy Watch, Galaxy Watch Classic, Galaxy Watch Pro smartwatches, Galaxy smartwatches and wearable devices generally, and specifically the NFC- and TVMF-based Samsung Pay functionality implemented across those product lines.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.