Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
MIMO Research v. Samsung Electronics — MIMO Patent Infringement | PatSnap
Patent Litigation

MIMO Research v. Samsung Electronics: Five MIMO Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice

MIMO Research LLC filed suit against Samsung Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting five MIMO wireless communication patents against flagship Galaxy smartphones including the S21, S22, Note 20 Ultra, and Z Fold series. The case ran 509 days before being dismissed with prejudice on November 1, 2023.

Resolution time
509days
509 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with pre-trial resolution in EDTX patent cases
Patents asserted
5
US7046716B1, US7091854B1, US7305057B1, US7433382B1, and US7133646B1 — five MIMO wireless communication patents asserted
Outcome
Dismissed with Prejudice
All of MIMO Research's claims against Samsung dismissed with prejudice; each party bears its own costs
Cost ruling
Own Costs
Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees — no fee-shifting ordered
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Five MIMO Patents, Samsung Galaxy Devices, and an EDTX Dismissal

On June 10, 2022, MIMO Research LLC filed suit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 5:22-cv-00073), asserting infringement of five U.S. patents: US7046716B1, US7091854B1, US7305057B1, US7433382B1, and US7133646B1. The accused products included Samsung's Galaxy Note 20 Ultra, Galaxy S21 Ultra, Galaxy S21+, Galaxy S22 Ultra, Galaxy S22+, Galaxy Z Fold2, and Galaxy Z Fold3 — spanning multiple flagship smartphone generations and form factors.

The recorded Basis of Termination is Dismissed with Prejudice. The docket order dated November 1, 2023 granted an Agreed Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), dismissing all of MIMO Research's claims against the named defendant in the member case (Texas Instruments Incorporated, in consolidated member case 5:22-cv-83) with prejudice, and that defendant's counterclaims without prejudice. Notably, the verdict order references Texas Instruments Incorporated as the counterparty — not Samsung Electronics — and directs closure of both the member case 5:22-cv-83 and lead case 5:22-cv-73. The specific terms between the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.

Resolution at 509 days is consistent with pre-trial dispositions in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue known for active patent dockets and relatively swift scheduling orders. What drove the agreed dismissal — whether licensing, invalidity risk, claim construction concerns, or another commercial arrangement — is not disclosed in the public record. The discrepancy between the named defendant in the case caption (Samsung Electronics) and the party named in the dismissal order (Texas Instruments Incorporated) is notable and may reflect the consolidated multi-defendant structure of the litigation.

See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →
Case at a glance
CourtTexas Eastern District Court
JudgeN/A
FiledJune 10, 2022
ClosedNovember 1, 2023
Duration509 days
OutcomeDismissed with Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed with Prejudice
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Eastern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 509 days

509 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with pre-trial resolution in EDTX patent cases

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUN 10 2022 — 509 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in MIMO Research, LLC v Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Eastern District Court. JUN 10 2022 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings NOV 1 2023 Dismissed with Prejudice 509 DAYS TOTAL
Patent at issue

US7046716B1 and four further MIMO wireless communication patents

Publication No.US7046716B1
Application No.US10/618876
Patent details
ProductMIMO wireless communication — multi-antenna signal transmission methods
Cited in actionJune 10, 2022

Publication No.US7091854B1
Application No.US10/822252
Patent details
ProductMIMO wireless communication — antenna processing and receiver systems
Cited in actionJune 10, 2022

Publication No.US7305057B1
Application No.US10/614139
Patent details
ProductMIMO wireless communication — spatial multiplexing and signal coding
Cited in actionJune 10, 2022

Publication No.US7433382B1
Application No.US10/614366
Patent details
ProductMIMO wireless communication — multi-antenna data rate enhancement
Cited in actionJune 10, 2022

Publication No.US7133646B1
Application No.US10/748783
Patent details
ProductMIMO wireless communication — channel estimation and signal detection
Cited in actionJune 10, 2022
Technical brief · sourced from PatSnap patent database
Patent figurePatent figure
Representative claim (1 of 4 independent)
1. A dual-mode ultra wideband and wireless local area network transceiver comprising: a digital lowpass-shaping finite impulse response filter system coupled to a ultra wideband multichannel pseudorandom noise sequence mapping or a wireless local area network inverse fast Fourier transform and in-phase/quadrature modulation; a dual-mode sampling frequency rate coupled to a digital-to-analog converter, said digital lowpass shaping filter system coupled to said digital to analog converter; a switch to connect from the ultra wideband multichannel pseudorandom noise sequence mapping or the wireless local area network…
Technical background
BACKGROUND This invention is generally relative to a dual-mode ultra wideband (UWB) and wireless local area network (WLAN) communications. On Apr. 22, 2002, U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the revision of Part 15 of the Commission's rules regarding UWB transmission systems to permit the marketing and operation of certain types of new products incorporating UWB technology. With appropriate technology, UWB devices can operate using spectrum occupied by existing radio service without causing inte…
Patent family
1 family member across 1 jurisdiction (US)
PatSnap Eureka · FTO Search Agent
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7046716B1 and the MIMO Research portfolio?

Any company designing, manufacturing, or selling MIMO-enabled devices — including smartphones, tablets, wireless chipsets, or cellular infrastructure equipment — should assess exposure to the five patents asserted in this case. The accused Samsung products span flagship Android devices across multiple generations, indicating broad potential claim coverage over modern LTE/5G multi-antenna implementations.

Run FTO in Eureka
Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

Before the Court is the Agreed Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice (Dkt. No. 109). Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff MIMO Research LLC (“MIMO Research”) requests that all of MIMO Research’s claims in this action against Texas Instruments Incorporated be dismissed with prejudice and that all of Texas Instruments Incorporated’s counterclaims against MIMO Research be dismissed without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Having considered the motion and in light of its joint nature, the Court finds that it (Dkt. No. 109) should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that all MIMO Research’s claims against Texas Instruments Incorporated in member case 5:22-cv-83 are DISMISSED with prejudice, and all Texas Instruments Incorporated’s counterclaims against MIMO Research in member case 5:22-cv-83 are Case 5:22-cv-00073-JRG-JBB Document 110 Filed 11/01/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 883 2 DISMISSED without prejudice. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All motions pending in member case 5:22-cv-83 not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE member case 5:22-cv-83. Because there are no other consolidated parties or claims remaining in lead case 5:22-cv-73, see Dkt. No. 81, the Clerk of the Court is also directed to CLOSE lead case 5:22-cv-73. So Ordered this Nov 1, 2023
Source: PACER Docket, Case 5:22-cv-00073, Texas Eastern District Court

The court's order granting the Agreed Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) confirms a consensual, court-entered termination of the litigation. The order directs dismissal of the plaintiff's claims with prejudice and the counterclaimant's claims without prejudice, with no fee-shifting. The order identifies the counterparty as Texas Instruments Incorporated in the context of member case 5:22-cv-83, while the lead case caption names Samsung Electronics — a structural feature of the consolidated proceeding that the public record does not further explain.

PACER case 5:22-cv-00073 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Dismissal terms

Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed resolution means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2): the case ends finally

A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) is a final adjudication on the merits. MIMO Research cannot refile these same claims against the same defendant on the same patents. The order was agreed — meaning both sides jointly moved for it — and was entered by the court on November 1, 2023. Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.

Final — no refiling permitted
Patent holder outcome

MIMO Research loses the right to refile these claims

By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, MIMO Research forfeits the ability to reassert these five patents against the same defendant on the same accused products. The patents themselves remain in force and could potentially be asserted against other parties, but this litigation avenue is permanently closed. The specific terms of any arrangement between the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.

Claims extinguished as to this defendant
Defendant outcome

Samsung (and/or Texas Instruments) obtains permanent closure of this action

The with-prejudice dismissal provides the defendant with a final bar against reassertion of these claims by MIMO Research in this forum. Counterclaims — attributed in the order to Texas Instruments Incorporated — were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the ability to raise those separately if warranted. Each party bears its own costs, with no fee-shifting ordered.

Counterclaims dismissed without prejudice
Commercial implications

Five MIMO patents remain live — enforcement risk persists for other players

A with-prejudice dismissal on agreed terms does not invalidate the asserted patents. US7046716B1, US7091854B1, US7305057B1, US7433382B1, and US7133646B1 remain potentially enforceable against other manufacturers of MIMO-enabled devices. Companies in the wireless handset, chipset, and infrastructure sectors should monitor MIMO Research's portfolio for further enforcement activity.

Patents remain active — monitor for re-assertion
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 5:22-cv-00073 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffMIMO Research, LLCCompany/Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Company/Search in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDaniel P. HipskindAttorneyCounsel for MIMO Research, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselElizabeth L. DeRieuxAttorneyCounsel for MIMO Research, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBerger & Hipskind LLP (Beverly Hills)Law FirmRepresenting MIMO Research, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmCapshaw DeRieux LLPLaw FirmRepresenting MIMO Research, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMelissa Richards SmithAttorneyCounsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmGillam & Smith LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeTexas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
R&D signals

R&D signals in the MIMO wireless communication patent space

Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from MIMO Research's enforcement campaign against Samsung's Galaxy device portfolio in the Eastern District of Texas.

Patent portfolio

MIMO Research's five-patent portfolio — enforcement breadth and filing era

MIMO Research's five asserted patents originate from early-2000s application filings, placing them squarely in the foundational era of MIMO wireless development. Tracking the full citation and family network of these patents can reveal additional related claims that may not yet have been asserted — a critical signal for any OEM or chipset maker active in multi-antenna wireless product development.

Early MIMO portfolio — monitor for family claims
Technology landscape

MIMO patent filing trends: LTE to 5G transition and claim evolution

Patent filings covering MIMO spatial multiplexing, beamforming, and channel estimation have accelerated with 5G standardisation. Understanding where the density of active MIMO patents sits — from legacy LTE implementations to mmWave 5G — helps R&D teams identify freedom-to-operate risk zones and white-space opportunities for differentiated antenna architecture innovation.

MIMO filing trends — LTE to 5G
Competitor IP posture

Samsung Electronics' MIMO and antenna IP — defensive portfolio strength

Samsung Electronics holds a substantial portfolio of self-developed MIMO and multi-antenna patents spanning chipset integration, antenna array design, and signal processing. Analysing Samsung's patent posture in the MIMO space provides insight into how major OEMs build defensive depth against NPE assertion campaigns targeting flagship device lines.

Samsung MIMO defensive portfolio
White space opportunity

Adjacent MIMO innovation areas with lower patent density

While core MIMO spatial multiplexing is heavily patented, adjacent areas — including reconfigurable intelligent surfaces, AI-driven beamforming optimisation, and massive MIMO for sub-6GHz 5G — show comparatively lower assertion risk. R&D teams can use patent landscape mapping to identify filing opportunities that differentiate from the claim scope of the early-2000s MIMO patent generation.

Adjacent MIMO white space — RIS, AI beamforming
Related litigation

Similar MIMO wireless patent infringement cases in EDTX and related courts

Explore comparable MIMO and wireless communication patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas against smartphone and chipset manufacturers.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
MIMO Research, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Eastern District Court case history, MIMO Research, LLC's full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
MIMO patent suits vs. OEMsEDTX wireless patent dismissalsSamsung patent litigation history5G/LTE standard patent cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the MIMO wireless patent IP landscape

A five-patent MIMO suit against Samsung flagship devices, resolved in 509 days with prejudice — here is what IP teams should take away.

MIMO wireless patents remain an active enforcement vector in EDTX

The Eastern District of Texas continues to attract MIMO and wireless standard-essential patent litigation. MIMO Research's decision to assert five patents simultaneously against flagship Samsung devices suggests a broad claim scope strategy. Wireless device makers and chipset suppliers should audit exposure to similar MIMO patent portfolios before receiving a demand letter.

Agreed dismissals with prejudice leave patent validity intact — watch for third-party enforcement

None of the five asserted patents were invalidated in this proceeding. The agreed dismissal with prejudice closes this case but does not extinguish the patents. Competitors and component suppliers in the MIMO device space should assess whether these patents pose a continuing risk, particularly if MIMO Research pursues further licensing or litigation campaigns.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock full strategic intelligence for this EDTX district court MIMO wireless patent enforcement case, including portfolio mapping and IPR risk scoring.
Multi-defendant strategy analysisIPR petition viabilityMIMO portfolio enforcement map
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

MIMO v Samsung — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Assess your MIMO wireless patent exposure before the next filing

Run an FTO analysis on US7046716B1 and related MIMO patents with PatSnap Eureka. Monitor MIMO Research's portfolio for new enforcement campaigns and set alerts for emerging MIMO wireless litigation in EDTX and beyond.

Disclaimer

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.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.