Mobile Data Technologies v. Samsung: 5-Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Mobile Data Technologies, LLC filed a five-patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting the Galaxy S, Z Fold, Z Flip, and A Series smartphones. The parties jointly moved to dismiss the case with prejudice after 543 days — a resolution that, under the dismissal terms, forecloses any refiling on the same patents against Samsung.
Five-Patent Mobile Data Suit Ends in With-Prejudice Dismissal
On June 10, 2024, Mobile Data Technologies, LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., asserting infringement of five U.S. patents — US8793336B2, US9619578B2, US9922348B2, US9032039B2, and US8825801B2 — covering mobile data synchronisation, delivery, and related technologies. The accused products included the Galaxy S22, S23 FE, and S24 Series, Galaxy Z Flip5, Galaxy Z Fold5, Galaxy A Series, Samsung Members mobile application, and Samsung smartphones broadly.
The case closed on December 5, 2025, when the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss representing that the dispute had been resolved. The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims with prejudice, ordering each side to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law — Mobile Data Technologies cannot reassert these five patents against Samsung in a new action arising from the same accused products.
At 543 days, the timeline is consistent with a dispute that progressed through substantive motion practice or claim construction before the parties reached resolution — longer than cases that settle early but shorter than those that proceed to trial. The with-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing arrangement are hallmarks of a confidential settlement, though the public record does not disclose any financial terms. What drove the final resolution — whether licensing, IPR pressure, or commercial negotiation — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 543 days
543 days — above the ~400-day median for E.D. Texas patent cases that settle pre-trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion outcome means for both parties
With-prejudice dismissal: a permanent bar on re-litigation
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal — which preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile — this order permanently extinguishes Mobile Data Technologies’ ability to reassert US8793336B2, US9619578B2, US9922348B2, US9032039B2, or US8825801B2 against Samsung on the same accused products. The joint motion framing signals the parties reached an agreed resolution before trial.
No refiling permittedMDT’s claims are permanently resolved — terms undisclosed
Mobile Data Technologies secured a dismissal with prejudice on its own motion, which strongly suggests a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral concession. The five asserted patents remain in force against third parties — only claims against Samsung are extinguished. Whether MDT received a lump-sum license, running royalties, or a cross-licence is not reflected in the public record, which is standard for settled E.D. Texas patent cases.
Patents survive vs. third partiesSamsung exits with prejudice — Galaxy line cleared of this action
Samsung, represented by Goodwin Procter, achieved a with-prejudice dismissal that immunises the entire Galaxy accused product range from future suit by MDT on these five patents. The mutual cost-bearing order means Samsung absorbed its own litigation spend without fee-shifting liability. For a defendant of Samsung’s scale, obtaining finality across five mobile data patents covering flagship and mid-range Galaxy devices is commercially significant.
Galaxy line fully clearedE.D. Texas mobile data suits: settlement as the dominant endgame
This outcome is consistent with the broader pattern in E.D. Texas where NPE-asserted mobile data patents against major OEMs most commonly resolve via confidential settlement before trial. The five patents in suit, covering data synchronisation and delivery methods relevant to any connected smartphone platform, retain enforcement value against other manufacturers. Competitors shipping Android or multi-platform devices in overlapping product categories should assess their exposure to the same patent family.
NPE enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Mobile Data Technologies, LLC | Company | Mobile data IP licensing entity — holder of US8793336B2 and 4 related mobile data patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — global smartphone manufacturer, maker of Galaxy device lineupSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Austin Ciuffo | Attorney | Counsel for Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Erick Scott Robinson | Attorney | Counsel for Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eugene Goryunov | Attorney | Counsel for Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Homayoon Rafatijo | Attorney | Counsel for Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jayme Partridge | Attorney | Counsel for Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jayne C Piana | Attorney | Counsel for Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel Hernandez | Attorney | Counsel for Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Stefan Spisak | Attorney | Counsel for Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katherine Dearing | Attorney | Counsel for Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Charles Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrick Michael Dunn | Attorney | Counsel for Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Brown Rudnick LLP | Law Firm | Representing Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PC | Law Firm | Representing Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dorsett Johnson & Cisneros | Law Firm | Representing Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scheef & Stone LLP (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Mobile Data Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christine Potkay | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Darryl M. Woo | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Douglas J. Kline | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Harrison Gunn | 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 | Naomi Birbach | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick J. Mccarthy | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Srikanth Reddy | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Goodwin Procter LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Goodwin Procter, LLP – Washington DC | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Goodwin Proctor LLP (Boston) | 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 grants the parties’ joint motion in full, dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is legally dispositive: it constitutes a final judgment barring any future action by Mobile Data Technologies against Samsung on the same patents and accused products. The mutual cost-bearing provision suggests neither party secured a fee-shifting ruling under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which typically requires a finding of exceptionality. The phrase ‘case has been resolved’ in the joint motion, without elaboration, is the standard formulation used when parties have reached a confidential settlement whose terms are not filed with the court.
US8793336B2 — mobile data synchronisation and delivery technology
US8793336B2, the lead patent in this action, was filed as application US13/364950 and covers mobile data synchronisation and delivery methods — technologies fundamental to how smartphones request, receive, and manage data from remote servers. The four companion patents (US9619578B2, US9922348B2, US9032039B2, US8825801B2) extend this core disclosure across related aspects including data management, update delivery, and connection handling. These patents sit in the layer of the smartphone stack that governs background sync, push notifications, and app data refresh — functionality present in virtually every modern connected device.
The strategic significance of this patent family is its breadth across the Android ecosystem. By asserting against Galaxy S, Z, and A Series — covering flagship, foldable, and mid-range tiers — MDT demonstrated that its claim language is not product-specific. Any OEM implementing comparable mobile data synchronisation architectures, particularly those using common Android framework components, should treat this family as an active enforcement risk. The resolution against Samsung does not create estoppel or exhaustion against other manufacturers, meaning the portfolio retains its licensing value across the broader smartphone market.
Should you run an FTO against US8793336B2 and the MDT mobile data portfolio?
If your product roadmap includes smartphones, tablets, connected wearables, or any Android-based device that performs background data synchronisation, push notification delivery, or remote data management, this five-patent family warrants direct FTO analysis. The fact that Mobile Data Technologies pursued Samsung across its entire Galaxy lineup — from the Z Fold5 to the A Series — signals claim language broad enough to capture mainstream implementation patterns, not just premium devices. Engineering teams building or licensing data-sync middleware should prioritise clearance before commercial launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim-level coverage across US8793336B2, US9619578B2, US9922348B2, US9032039B2, and US8825801B2 against your specific product architecture. Eureka surfaces forward citations, active family members in international jurisdictions, and claim scope comparisons against your technical implementation — enabling IP counsel to prioritise which claims require design-around analysis and which represent manageable risk given the public record of this litigation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8793336B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile data patent cases in E.D. Texas against major OEMs
Cases involving mobile data synchronisation and delivery patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas against smartphone OEMs, including comparable NPE enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the mobile data patent IP landscape
A five-patent NPE action against Samsung’s flagship Galaxy lineup resolving with prejudice in under 18 months carries clear signals for mobile platform IP strategy.
With-prejudice joint dismissals almost always reflect a confidential licence
When both parties jointly move for a with-prejudice dismissal and absorb their own fees, the commercial reality is almost always a negotiated payment or licence. Mobile data patent families covering synchronisation and delivery methods retain licensing leverage across the smartphone OEM landscape — this resolution does not diminish that leverage against non-Samsung targets.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for mobile data NPE assertions
Mobile Data Technologies filed in Marshall, Texas — a deliberate venue choice consistent with NPE enforcement strategy. The Eastern District’s docket pace and plaintiff-favourable procedural environment continue to make it the dominant forum for mobile platform patent assertions, with most cases resolving before trial but after significant discovery investment by defendants.
Mobile v Samsung — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits. In this case, the court’s December 2025 order permanently bars Mobile Data Technologies from reasserting US8793336B2 and the four co-asserted patents against Samsung Electronics on the same accused Galaxy products. The parties’ joint motion represented the case had been resolved, which courts treat as grounds for a final dismissal order.
The accused products included the Galaxy S22 Series, Galaxy S23 FE, Galaxy S24 Series, Galaxy Z Flip5, Galaxy Z Fold5, Galaxy A Series smartphones, and the Samsung Members mobile application. This range spans flagship, foldable, fan edition, and mid-range tiers, suggesting MDT’s claim language was broad enough to cover multiple product lines across Samsung’s Android portfolio.
The public record does not disclose any financial terms. The joint motion states only that ‘the above-captioned case has been resolved.’ The court ordered each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The with-prejudice dismissal structure is consistent with a confidential settlement, but no licence amount, royalty rate, or other consideration is reflected in the docket.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice extinguishes claims only between MDT and Samsung Electronics. The five patents — US8793336B2, US9619578B2, US9922348B2, US9032039B2, and US8825801B2 — remain issued and enforceable against third parties. Other Android OEMs, device manufacturers, or platform licensees implementing similar mobile data synchronisation functionality are not protected by this dismissal and remain potential enforcement targets.
The Eastern District of Texas, particularly the Marshall division, is a consistently favoured venue for NPE patent assertions due to its historically plaintiff-friendly procedural environment, experienced patent judges, and docket management practices. Filing in E.D. Texas is a deliberate strategic choice for licensing-oriented plaintiffs seeking leverage in settlement negotiations — a pattern well-established in mobile technology patent enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.