Seungman Kim v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.
Infringement action filed 5 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 21 Sep 2023, with 6 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Case record
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-00155
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 5 Apr 2023 – 21 Sep 2023
- Duration
- 169 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed with Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security in mobile device
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security mode in mobile device
A mobile device includes a user interface having a display panel and a touch panel, a network interface to communicate with an external network, a memory to store a password and an authorized user, a functional unit to sense a user and a motion of the mobile device during a power saving mode, and a control unit to control operations of the mobile device, and to perform an unlocking operation during the power saving mode to unlock the mobile device. The unlocking operation includes a motion detection process of sensing the motion of the mobile device, a user identification process of determining that a sensed user represents the authorized user, in response to the sensed motion of the motion detecting process, and an unlocking process of unlocking the mobile device according to the determination of the user identification process.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 28 Feb 2023
- Est. expiry
- 17 Feb 2034
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KIM, SEUNGMAN
- Classification
- H04M1/67H04M1/673H04W52/02H04M1/72412H04M1/72448H04M1/72463H04M1/72469H04W12/06H04W12/08H04M1/66H04M1/72451H04M1/72457
- Prosecution counsel
- EIPG
- Examiner
- OSIFADE, IDOWU O
Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security mode in mobile device
A method of a mobile device including a display unit having a panel to display a screen to set the mobile device to a security mode requiring a security check process to enter a password for a user to access a normal mode of the mobile device, a functional unit to photograph an object and sense a motion of the mobile device, and a control unit configured to not apply the security check process for the normal mode of the mobile device according to the photographed object and the sensed motion of the functional unit.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 17 Dec 2019
- Est. expiry
- 17 Feb 2034
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- KIM, SEUNGMAN
- Classification
- H04M1/66H04W12/06H04M1/68H04M1/67H04M1/673H04W52/02H04M3/16H04W12/08H04M1/725H04M1/72412H04M1/72448H04M1/72451H04M1/72457H04M1/72469
- Prosecution counsel
- EIPG
- Examiner
- OSIFADE, IDOWU O
Also asserted in this case
4 moreThe docket lists 6 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 4 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US11234127B1Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security mode in mobile device
- US11212382B2Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security mode in mobile device
- US10064056B2Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security in mobile device
- US11184473B2Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security mode in mobile device
Parties of record
Seungman Kim
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jennifer Parker Ainsworth · Jon Loevy · Matthew V. Topic · Michael Kanovitz
- Firm
- Loevy & Loevy, Wilson, Robertson & Vandeventer, PC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham · Brendan Frederick McLaughlin · David S. Chun · Hyun-Joong Kim · Melissa Richards Smith · Meredith E. Foor · Shaun William Hassett · Steven Pepe
- Firm
- Gillam & Smith LLP, Potter Minton PC, Ropes & Gray LLP, Ropes & Gray LLP (East Palo Alto), Ropes & Gray LLP (NY), Ropes & Gray LLP (New York)
- Also named
- Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Jennifer Parker Ainsworth | Seungman Kim | Plaintiff |
| Jon Loevy | Seungman Kim | Plaintiff |
| Matthew V. Topic | Seungman Kim | Plaintiff |
| Michael Kanovitz | Seungman Kim | Plaintiff |
| Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Brendan Frederick McLaughlin | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| David S. Chun | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Hyun-Joong Kim | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Melissa Richards Smith | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Meredith E. Foor | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Shaun William Hassett | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
| Steven Pepe | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Stipulation of Dismissal (the “Stipulation”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and filed by Plaintiff Seungman Kim and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”). (Dkt. No. 32.) In the Stipulation, the Parties stipulate to the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims that Plaintiff raised or could have raised in this action based on, relating to, or involving Android Trusted Places, Android Trusted Devices, Android OnBody Detection, and any services, components, hardware, software, websites, processes, machines, manufactures, or any combinations and components thereof, that are designed, developed, used, sold, offered for sale, licensed, imported, or made, in whole or substantial part, by or on behalf of Google or its affiliates (which does not include incidental use of the open-source application framework published at http://source.android.com by persons or entities other than Google or its affiliates for the mere interoperability of a product with said framework). (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending Case 2:23-cv-00155-JRG Document 33 Filed 09/21/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 336 2 requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED-ASMOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain.”
Case 2:23-cv-00155 · E.D. Tex. · closed 21 September 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:23-cv-00155?
2:23-cv-00155 is a patent infringement action brought by Seungman Kim against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., filed on 5 Apr 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 21 September 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:23-cv-00155?
US11595507B2 (“Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security mode in mobile device”), assigned to KIMIPS LLC, currently active; US10511975B2 (“Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security mode in mobile device”), assigned to KIMIPS LLC, currently active; US11234127B1 (“Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security mode in mobile device”), assigned to KIMIPS LLC; US11212382B2 (“Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security mode in mobile device”), assigned to KIMIPS LLC; US10064056B2 (“Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security in mobile device”), assigned to KIMIPS LLC; US11184473B2 (“Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security mode in mobile device”), assigned to KIMIPS LLC. The record also lists Electronic apparatus and method of selectively applying security in mobile device.
How was case 2:23-cv-00155 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Stipulation of Dismissal (the “Stipulation”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and filed by Plaintiff Seungman Kim and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, the “Parties”). (Dkt. No. 32.) In the Stipulation, the Parties stipulate to the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims that Plaintiff raised or could have raised in this action based on, relating to, or involving Android Trusted Places, Android Trusted Devices, Android OnBody Detection, and any services, components, hardware, softwa
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:23-cv-00155 take?
169 calendar days, from filing on 5 Apr 2023 to closure on 21 September 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00155?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Jennifer Parker Ainsworth, Jon Loevy, Matthew V. Topic and Michael Kanovitz are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Seungman Kim. Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham, Brendan Frederick McLaughlin, David S. Chun, Hyun-Joong Kim, Melissa Richards Smith, Meredith E. Foor, Shaun William Hassett and Steven Pepe appear for defendant Samsung Electronics.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00155 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.