MyPort v. Samsung: Three-Patent Galaxy Device Suit Ends With Prejudice After 676 Days
MyPort, Inc. filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. asserting three patents across 29 Galaxy smartphones, tablets, and foldables. After 676 days of litigation, both parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), each bearing its own costs.
A broad Galaxy device infringement campaign ends with a permanent bar on re-filing
On April 15, 2022, MyPort, Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-cv-00114) before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. MyPort asserted three U.S. patents — US10237067B2, US10721066B2, and US9832017B2 — against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The accused product lineup was unusually broad, spanning 29 distinct Galaxy devices including flagship smartphones, 5G variants, foldables, and the Galaxy Book laptop line.
The case closed on February 20, 2024, via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice and ordering each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final adjudication on the merits, meaning MyPort is permanently barred from asserting the same claims against the same parties in any future proceeding.
The 676-day duration — longer than many E.D. Texas patent cases that settle early — suggests the parties engaged in meaningful discovery or claim construction activity before reaching resolution. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral capitulation, though the precise commercial terms, if any, remain confidential and outside the public record. What drove the ultimate resolution — whether claim construction rulings, IPR activity, licensing terms, or commercial considerations — cannot be confirmed from publicly available filings alone.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 676 days
676 days — above the median for patent cases in E.D. Texas, suggesting substantive pre-trial activity before resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a jointly filed, court-accepted finality
A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties’ signatures and, once filed, operates as a final adjudication on the merits. The court’s role is to accept and acknowledge — not independently adjudicate. ‘With prejudice’ means the dismissal carries claim-preclusive effect: MyPort cannot refile the same infringement claims on these patents against Samsung in any U.S. court.
Claim-preclusive dismissalMyPort’s claims are permanently extinguished against Samsung
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, MyPort forfeits any future enforcement of US10237067B2, US10721066B2, and US9832017B2 against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on the claims raised here. The patents themselves remain in force and could theoretically be asserted against third parties, but the Samsung enforcement avenue is closed. Each party bearing its own costs suggests MyPort did not extract a judicially-imposed remedy.
Samsung enforcement closedSamsung secures permanent protection from these specific claims
Samsung obtained a with-prejudice dismissal without any admission of liability, no damages award on record, and no injunction. The 29 accused Galaxy devices — including the Galaxy S7 through S21 series and foldable Z-line — are no longer subject to these specific patent claims from MyPort. The mutual cost-bearing order means Samsung absorbed its own legal fees, consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a clear-cut win on the merits.
No liability admittedBroad product scope signals licensing leverage was the core strategy
Naming 29 products — spanning budget, flagship, foldable, and laptop categories — is consistent with a licensing-focused strategy designed to maximise exposure and settlement pressure. The with-prejudice outcome without publicly reported damages or injunctive relief suggests the resolution likely involved confidential commercial terms, or MyPort assessed its litigation position unfavourably after substantive proceedings. Other device makers in the mobile and connected-device space holding potentially overlapping technology should monitor the underlying patents.
Confidential resolution likelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | MyPort, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10237067B2, US10721066B2, and US9832017B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. — global consumer electronics manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Franklin Devin Kang | Attorney | Counsel for MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Edward Lord | Attorney | Counsel for MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael David Ricketts | Attorney | Counsel for MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathan Louis Levenson | Attorney | Counsel for MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrick Joseph Conroy | Attorney | Counsel for MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter R. Afrasiabi | Attorney | Counsel for MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah Elizabeth Spires | Attorney | Counsel for MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven Joseph Udick | Attorney | Counsel for MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven Wayne Hartsell | Attorney | Counsel for MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC | Law Firm | Representing MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | One LLP | Law Firm | Representing MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Skiermont Derby LLP | Law Firm | Representing MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Warren Rhoades, LLP (Arlington) | Law Firm | Representing MyPort, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew R. Sommer | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ariane S. Mann | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cyrus Frelinghuysen | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Giancarlo Scaccia | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Grant K. Schmidt | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory Winter | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James J. Guiliano | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Travis Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jenna Kuh | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jon Bentley Hyland | 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 | Richard A. Edlin | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas Pease | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Wen Xue | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cyrus Frelinghuysen | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Greenberg Traurig LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Greenberg Traurig LLP (McLean) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Greenberg Traurig LLP (New York) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Greenberg Traurig PA | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hilger Graben, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hilgers Graben, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a purely ministerial acceptance of the parties’ joint stipulation — there is no merits analysis, claim construction ruling, or damages finding. The explicit ‘with prejudice’ designation is the operative legal outcome: it extinguishes MyPort’s right to relitigate these specific claims against Samsung. The mutual cost-bearing provision is notable; had either party secured a clear litigation advantage, fee-shifting motions would typically follow. The absence of any such order is consistent with a privately negotiated commercial resolution underpinning the stipulation.
US10237067B2, US10721066B2 & US9832017B2 — mobile device authentication and secure pairing
The three patents asserted by MyPort — US10237067B2 (application US15/824087), US10721066B2 (application US16/358455), and US9832017B2 (application US15/272013) — form a portfolio directed at cryptographic authentication and secure device-pairing technologies implemented in consumer mobile hardware. The application lineage across three separate filings suggests a continuation strategy designed to maintain broad claim coverage as the underlying technology matured and Samsung’s product line evolved into 5G and foldable form factors.
For the mobile and connected-device sector, this portfolio represents a meaningful enforcement risk. The breadth of accused products — from the Galaxy S7 (launched 2016) through the Galaxy Z Fold3 5G (2021) — indicates the claimed inventions are asserted to cover fundamental implementation-level features rather than product-specific add-ons. Any OEM, ODM, or platform provider whose devices implement comparable secure authentication or pairing mechanisms should assess FTO exposure against this portfolio, particularly given the patents’ continuation structure, which may yield further child applications.
Should your team run an FTO against US10237067B2, US10721066B2 and US9832017B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or distributes smartphones, tablets, laptops, or connected devices incorporating cryptographic authentication or device-pairing functionality, this MyPort portfolio warrants direct FTO scrutiny. Samsung’s with-prejudice dismissal does not invalidate these patents and provides no clearance to third parties. The continuation application structure means the portfolio could expand with additional claims directed at newer implementations such as 5G authentication protocols or multi-device pairing ecosystems.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim scope across all three patents simultaneously, identify prior art that was not raised in this litigation, and benchmark against comparable mobile authentication portfolios. Eureka’s claim charting tools allow product teams to assess whether specific hardware or firmware implementations fall within the asserted claim language — providing actionable clearance opinions before product launch rather than reactive litigation defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10237067B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile device authentication patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving cryptographic authentication and secure device-pairing patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas against mobile OEMs follow recognisable assertion and resolution patterns.
What this case signals for the mobile device authentication IP landscape
MyPort’s three-patent campaign against Samsung’s broadest product lines reveals recurring licensing and enforcement patterns in mobile cryptographic IP.
Broad accused product lists in E.D. Texas signal licensing pressure, not trial readiness
Naming 29 products across flagship, mid-range, foldable, and laptop categories is a well-established pressure tactic in E.D. Texas. It maximises per-unit damages exposure and forces defendants to defend a wide surface area. Companies operating in the smartphone, tablet, and connected-device space should track assertion patterns from portfolios like MyPort’s early to avoid reactive, high-cost defences.
With-prejudice dismissals without cost-shifting rarely signal a clean defendant win
When both parties bear their own costs in a with-prejudice dismissal, it typically indicates a negotiated resolution rather than a plaintiff retreat. Patent teams at device manufacturers should treat such outcomes as potential evidence of undisclosed licensing arrangements rather than precedents defeating the underlying patents, which remain valid and enforceable against other parties.
MyPort v Samsung — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars MyPort from reasserting US10237067B2, US10721066B2, and US9832017B2 against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on the claims raised in Case No. 2:22-cv-00114. The patents themselves remain in force and are enforceable against other parties.
MyPort accused 29 Samsung products including the Galaxy S7 through S21 series (including 5G variants), Galaxy Note8 through Note10+ 5G, Galaxy Z Flip 5G, Galaxy Z Flip3 5G, Galaxy Z Fold2 5G, Galaxy Z Fold3 5G, Galaxy Tab S7 5G, Galaxy A71 5G, Galaxy Book S, and Galaxy Book2. This breadth spanned budget, flagship, foldable, and laptop categories.
There is no merits ruling in this case. The dismissal was jointly stipulated by both parties under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), meaning no court found in Samsung’s favour on infringement, validity, or damages. Each party bearing its own costs is consistent with a negotiated resolution, though any commercial terms remain confidential.
MyPort was represented by Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, One LLP, Skiermont Derby LLP, and Warren Rhoades LLP. Samsung was represented primarily by Greenberg Traurig LLP across multiple offices, alongside Gillam & Smith LLP, Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP, and Hilgers Graben PLLC. The case was presided over by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars MyPort from reasserting these specific claims against Samsung. US10237067B2, US10721066B2, and US9832017B2 remain valid and enforceable patents. MyPort retains full enforcement rights against any other party — including other smartphone OEMs, component suppliers, or platform providers — whose products may fall within the claim scope.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.