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.
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 →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 509 days
509 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with pre-trial resolution in EDTX patent cases
US7046716B1 and four further MIMO wireless communication patents


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.
Official order — verbatim text
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.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
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 permittedMIMO 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 defendantSamsung (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 prejudiceFive 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-assertionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | MIMO Research, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel P. Hipskind | Attorney | Counsel for MIMO Research, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elizabeth L. DeRieux | Attorney | Counsel for MIMO Research, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Berger & Hipskind LLP (Beverly Hills) | Law Firm | Representing MIMO Research, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Capshaw DeRieux LLP | Law Firm | Representing MIMO Research, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
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.
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 claimsMIMO 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 5GSamsung 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 portfolioAdjacent 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 beamformingSimilar 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.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Galaxy Note 20 Ultra (SM-N985F, SM N985F/DS, SM-N986B, SM-N986U, SM-N986U1-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedMIMO Research, LLC's broader IP enforcement history
MIMO Research, LLC's full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat 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.
The consolidated multi-defendant structure warrants scrutiny for related exposure
The lead case (5:22-cv-73) and member case (5:22-cv-83) involved different named counterparties — Samsung Electronics and Texas Instruments Incorporated — suggesting MIMO Research pursued a coordinated, multi-target enforcement strategy. Companies sharing chipset supply chains with these defendants may face overlapping patent exposure from the same MIMO portfolio.
Five MIMO patents across three application families — prior art and IPR opportunity
The five asserted patents share application filing dates in the early 2000s MIMO development era, suggesting overlapping claim families. IP teams at wireless OEMs and chipset makers should assess IPR petition viability for US7046716B1, US7091854B1, US7305057B1, US7433382B1, and US7133646B1 before any future enforcement action reaches the scheduling order stage.
MIMO v Samsung — key questions answered
MIMO Research LLC asserted five U.S. patents: US7046716B1, US7091854B1, US7305057B1, US7433382B1, and US7133646B1 — all in the MIMO wireless communication domain. The accused products included Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra, S21 Ultra, S21+, S22 Ultra, S22+, Z Fold2, and Z Fold3.
The case was dismissed with prejudice on November 1, 2023, pursuant to an Agreed Motion to Dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2). The recorded Basis of Termination is Dismissed with Prejudice. Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms of any arrangement between the parties are not disclosed in the public record.
The lead case 5:22-cv-73 and member case 5:22-cv-83 were consolidated proceedings. The dismissal order addresses the member case (5:22-cv-83), in which Texas Instruments Incorporated appears as the counterparty. The public record does not further explain the relationship between the two proceedings beyond the consolidation reference at Dkt. No. 81.
Yes. A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) does not constitute an invalidity ruling. The five asserted patents — US7046716B1, US7091854B1, US7305057B1, US7433382B1, and US7133646B1 — remain in force and could potentially be asserted against other parties.
The accused Samsung products included the 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 and foldable device generations.
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.
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.