Morris Routing Technologies v. Samsung — 8 Routing Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice
Morris Routing Technologies, LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas against Samsung Electronics, asserting eight U.S. patents covering Segment Routing and SRv6 network protocols. After 525 days of litigation, the parties resolved all claims, with plaintiff’s case dismissed with prejudice — signalling a confidential settlement or licence agreement.
Eight Segment Routing patents, one confidential resolution in East Texas
On 8 July 2024, Morris Routing Technologies, LLC — a patent assertion entity holding a portfolio of network routing patents — filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-00624) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America, Inc. The complaint asserted eight U.S. patents covering Segment Routing (SR) and SRv6 protocol implementations, technologies standardised through IETF RFCs including RFC 8402, RFC 8660, RFC 8754, RFC 8986, RFC 9256, RFC 9352, and RFC 8663.
The case closed on 15 December 2025 after the parties jointly requested dismissal. Under the agreed order, Morris Routing’s claims against Samsung were dismissed with prejudice — meaning Morris cannot refile the same claims — while Samsung’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Samsung’s ability to re-assert invalidity or other defences in future proceedings. Each side bears its own legal costs, a structure typically consistent with a confidential settlement or cross-licence rather than a unilateral capitulation.
The 525-day duration suggests the case progressed meaningfully before resolution, potentially encompassing claim construction briefing or early motion practice, though the public record does not disclose financial terms. The asymmetric dismissal terms — plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without prejudice — are commercially notable: Samsung retains optionality on its invalidity defences if Morris or a successor pursues related patents in future litigation. The involvement of Finnegan Henderson across multiple offices for Samsung signals the seriousness with which Samsung treated the routing patent portfolio.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 525 days
525 days — above median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved pre-trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the asymmetric terms mean for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars Morris from refiling these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Morris Routing cannot refile suit against Samsung on the same eight patents for the same accused conduct. This is the strongest procedural closure a defendant can obtain short of a jury verdict. It typically reflects either a negotiated settlement — where the plaintiff agrees to this term in exchange for consideration — or a plaintiff decision to forgo further litigation.
Claim preclusion appliesSamsung’s counterclaims survive — dismissed without prejudice
Samsung’s counterclaims — likely including invalidity challenges to Morris’s patents — were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Samsung retains the right to re-assert those defences if the patents resurface in future litigation. This asymmetry is commercially significant: it prevents Morris (or any successor holding the portfolio) from claiming Samsung waived its invalidity arguments. Patent practitioners should note this structure is a deliberate negotiating outcome, not a procedural default.
Samsung’s defences preservedMorris Routing exits with prejudice — suggesting agreed consideration
Voluntary acceptance of a with-prejudice dismissal by a patent plaintiff strongly suggests that some form of value — a licence fee, cross-licence, or other commercial arrangement — was exchanged. Patent assertion entities rarely accept with-prejudice dismissals without consideration. The public record does not disclose financial terms. The fact that each party bears its own costs further suggests a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal driven by litigation weakness.
Terms undisclosedSRv6 patent exposure remains live for the broader networking industry
Morris Routing’s portfolio of eight Segment Routing patents, tied to widely-adopted IETF RFC standards, is not invalidated by this dismissal. The patents remain in force and could be asserted against other implementers of SR/SRv6 — including networking equipment vendors, cloud providers, and telecoms carriers deploying these protocols. Companies building on RFC 8402, RFC 8986, or RFC 9256 implementations should assess their exposure independently. This case signals active monetisation of SR/SRv6 standardised technology.
Portfolio still activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Morris Routing Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of 8 Segment Routing / SRv6 network protocol patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — global consumer electronics and network infrastructure manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew James Sherman | Attorney | Counsel for Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Clifford Chad Henson | Attorney | Counsel for Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Derek Dahlgren | Attorney | Counsel for Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jedediah Phillips | Attorney | Counsel for Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Devlin | Attorney | Counsel for Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Arnold & Porter, LLP (Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington) | Law Firm | Representing Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin R. Schlesinger | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles H. Suh | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christina Ji-Hye Yang | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher T. Blackford | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel G Chung | 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 | Parmanand K. Sharma | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garret Dunner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Reston) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan, LLP (Washington DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP – Atlanta | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gilliam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sean D. Jordan | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The agreed dismissal order reflects a structured bilateral resolution: plaintiff’s claims terminated with prejudice (a merits-preclusive outcome) while defendant’s counterclaims are preserved without prejudice. The fee-bearing clause — each party absorbs its own costs — is characteristic of negotiated settlements and would be unusual in a pure plaintiff capitulation. The explicit identification of three Samsung entities as ‘collectively Samsung’ throughout the order suggests the resolution covers the full Samsung corporate structure implicated in the alleged infringement, providing broad closure on these specific patent claims.
US10721164, US10594594 & 6 further patents — Segment Routing / SRv6 protocol portfolio
The eight asserted patents — US10721164B1, US10594594B1, US10735306B1, US12058042B1, US10419335B1, US11196660B1, US10476788B1, and US10652150B1 — all bear the B1 designation, indicating they issued without prior publication (i.e., from applications that were not published before grant). The underlying application numbers cluster around 2018–2020 filing dates, coinciding with the period of rapid IETF standardisation of Segment Routing over IPv6 (SRv6). The patents map technically to a suite of IETF RFCs: RFC 8402 (SR Architecture), RFC 8660/8663 (SR-MPLS), RFC 8754/8986 (SRv6 data plane), RFC 9256 (SR Policy), and RFC 9352, covering the full stack from SR architecture through SRv6 network programming.
Strategically, this portfolio sits at the intersection of two high-value technology trends: the widespread deployment of SRv6 in carrier and cloud networks, and the monetisation of patents that read on IETF-standardised protocols. Because SR/SRv6 is now embedded in products from major routing vendors and implemented across global backbone networks, any patent that credibly reads on RFC 8986 or RFC 9256 carries broad potential licensing reach. Samsung’s deep involvement in networking infrastructure — including 5G and enterprise switching — made it a commercially logical enforcement target. The fact that all eight patents remain in force post-dismissal means the portfolio’s strategic value is undiminished for future assertion.
Should you run an FTO against the Morris Routing SR/SRv6 patent portfolio?
Any organisation developing, selling, or deploying products that implement Segment Routing (SR-MPLS or SRv6) — including network equipment manufacturers, cloud providers, telecommunications carriers, and enterprise networking vendors — should treat this eight-patent portfolio as a priority FTO target. The patents map to foundational IETF RFCs that are now deeply embedded in commercial routing stacks. If your products support RFC 8402, RFC 8986, RFC 8754, or RFC 9256, your engineering and legal teams need a clear view of whether your implementations fall within the scope of any of these claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can ingest the full Morris Routing portfolio, run automated claim-to-product mapping against your product specifications, and flag which patent claims present the highest overlap with your SR/SRv6 implementations. Eureka’s prosecution history analysis surfaces narrowing amendments that may define the true claim scope — critical for SR patents where RFC compliance does not automatically equal infringement. Set up portfolio monitoring to track continuation filings, assignments, and new enforcement activity from Morris Routing or any successor entity holding these patent families.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10721164B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Segment Routing and network protocol patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement cases involving Segment Routing, SRv6, and IETF RFC-mapped network protocol patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the Segment Routing and SRv6 IP landscape
Eight IETF-standard-tied patents, one of the world’s largest electronics defendants, and a with-prejudice exit. The routing protocol IP market is contested.
SRv6 RFC-tied patents are being actively monetised in East Texas
Morris Routing’s ability to file and sustain litigation against Samsung for over 525 days — asserting patents mapped to IETF RFCs — confirms that standards-adjacent patent portfolios in the networking space carry real litigation risk. Any company implementing SR or SRv6 in commercial products or infrastructure should treat these patent families as live threats requiring FTO analysis.
Asymmetric dismissal terms signal Samsung’s negotiating leverage
Samsung secured dismissal of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice while preserving its own counterclaims without prejudice. This structure is a template other large defendants in routing patent disputes should seek. It eliminates re-litigation risk on these patents while keeping invalidity ammunition available — relevant if the same portfolio is asserted by a successor entity or in parallel proceedings.
Morris v Samsung — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice as to Morris Routing’s claims and without prejudice as to Samsung’s counterclaims, following a negotiated resolution. Each party bore its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The case closed on 15 December 2025 after 525 days of litigation in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Sean D. Jordan.
Morris Routing asserted eight U.S. patents: US10721164B1, US10594594B1, US10735306B1, US12058042B1, US10419335B1, US11196660B1, US10476788B1, and US10652150B1. All relate to Segment Routing and SRv6 network routing protocols mapped to IETF RFCs including RFC 8402, RFC 8660, RFC 8663, RFC 8754, RFC 8986, RFC 9256, and RFC 9352.
A with-prejudice dismissal is claim-preclusive: Morris Routing cannot refile the same patent claims against Samsung for the same accused conduct. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other defendants. Samsung’s counterclaims — likely invalidity challenges — were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Samsung retains the right to assert those defences in any future proceedings involving the same patents.
This asymmetric structure is a deliberate negotiating outcome common in patent settlements. Samsung secured preservation of its invalidity and other counterclaim defences in case the same portfolio resurfaces — whether asserted by Morris Routing against other products, or by a successor entity after a portfolio assignment. It prevents Morris or any transferee from arguing Samsung waived its invalidity positions.
The patents were asserted in connection with products implementing RFC 8402, RFC 8660, RFC 8663, RFC 8754, RFC 8986, RFC 9256, and RFC 9352 — the core Segment Routing and SRv6 standards stack. Whether a specific product implementation falls within the claim scope of any individual patent requires a claim-by-claim FTO analysis. RFC compliance alone does not establish infringement, but organisations deploying SRv6 should assess exposure given active enforcement of this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.