Book a demo

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

Try now
NST v. Samsung: Network-on-Chip Patent Dispute Dismissed | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID2:22-cv-00481
FiledDec 2022
ClosedJun 2024
Patent Litigation

NST v. Samsung: Six Network-on-Chip Patents End in Negotiated Dismissal

Network System Technologies, LLC filed suit against Samsung Electronics and affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting six integrated circuit patents covering network-on-chip communication and buffering architectures. The parties jointly moved to dismiss after resolving their claims — with core Samsung chip infringement counts dismissed with prejudice — closing the case after 558 days.

Resolution time
558days
558 days — longer than the median E.D. Tex. patent case, suggesting substantive negotiation before resolution
Patents asserted
6
US7594052B2 and 5 further network-on-chip integrated circuit patents asserted
Outcome
Case Dismissed
Core Samsung chip claims dismissed with prejudice; Qualcomm-chip claims dismissed without prejudice
Cost ruling
Own Costs
Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses — no prevailing party fee award
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Six NoC Patents, Five Samsung Entities, One Negotiated Exit

Network System Technologies, LLC filed Case No. 2:22-cv-00481 in the Eastern District of Texas on December 19, 2022, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The plaintiff asserted six U.S. patents — US7594052B2, US8072893B2, US7373449B2, US7366818B2, US7769893B2, and US8086800B2 — covering network-on-chip (NoC) communication protocols, data buffering, transaction establishment, and IC communication service mapping against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Samsung Austin Semiconductor, Samsung Semiconductor, and additional defendants Lenovo and OnePlus.

On June 29, 2024, the Court granted a joint motion to dismiss. The dismissal was structured on a split basis: claims premised on Qualcomm chips or chips supplied by non-Samsung entities were dismissed without prejudice, preserving NST’s right to pursue those theories elsewhere, while NST’s remaining claims directly targeting Samsung-manufactured chips were dismissed with prejudice, foreclosing re-litigation of those specific infringement theories. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, consistent with a negotiated resolution.

The 558-day duration — longer than the median for E.D. Tex. patent cases — suggests the parties engaged in substantive claim construction, discovery, and licensing negotiations before reaching agreement. The bifurcated dismissal structure is notable: the without-prejudice carve-out for Qualcomm-chip claims suggests NST may pursue chipset suppliers separately. The public record does not disclose financial terms, confirming only that any consideration exchanged remains confidential.

Case at a glance
Case no.2:22-cv-00481
CourtTexas Eastern
JudgeRodney Gilstrap
FiledDecember 19, 2022
ClosedJune 29, 2024
Duration558 days
OutcomeCase Dismissed
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisCase Dismissed
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 Case Dismissed in 558 days

558 days — longer than the median E.D. Tex. patent case, suggesting substantive negotiation before resolution

Case timeline: Complaint filed DEC 19 2022, SEP–OCT — 558 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Network System Technologies, LLC v Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Eastern District Court. DEC 19 2022 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings JUN 29 2024 Case Dismissed 558 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Split dismissal: what the with- and without-prejudice terms mean

Legal mechanism

A split dismissal is not a clean exit for either side

The Court dismissed NST’s core claims against Samsung-manufactured chips with prejudice, meaning those specific infringement theories are extinguished and cannot be re-filed. Claims tied to Qualcomm chips or third-party-supplied chips were dismissed without prejudice, leaving NST free to assert those same patents against chipset suppliers or in a new action. This bifurcation is characteristic of settlements that resolve direct manufacturer liability while preserving upstream chipset claims.

Partial with-prejudice dismissal
Patent holder outcome

NST retains ammunition against Qualcomm-chip ecosystem

For NST, the with-prejudice bar on Samsung chip claims represents the cost of settlement — those infringement theories against Samsung’s own fabricated chips are permanently closed. However, the without-prejudice preservation of Qualcomm-chip claims is strategically significant: NST can now target Qualcomm Technologies directly or pursue other device OEMs whose products incorporate Qualcomm silicon. The six patents remain active enforcement assets for the broader NoC chipset supply chain.

Qualcomm-chip claims preserved
Defendant outcome

Samsung secures with-prejudice closure on its chip liability

Samsung and its affiliates obtained the most commercially valuable outcome: NST’s direct infringement claims tied to Samsung-manufactured integrated circuits are dismissed with prejudice, eliminating re-litigation risk on those specific theories. Samsung’s own counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving its ability to assert invalidity or other defenses should NST pursue related claims in future proceedings. Each party bearing its own costs suggests neither side extracted a fee-shifting concession.

Samsung chip liability closed
Commercial implications

NoC patent holders have a roadmap for chipset-layer enforcement

The dismissal structure signals a pattern increasingly used in complex semiconductor disputes: resolve OEM-level liability while preserving chipset-supplier claims for parallel or sequential enforcement. For companies designing or licensing network-on-chip interconnect IP, this case illustrates that E.D. Tex. remains receptive to multi-defendant NoC patent actions and that bifurcated settlements can extend the life of an enforcement campaign across the semiconductor supply chain.

Supply-chain enforcement signal
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:22-cv-00481 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffNetwork System Technologies, LLCCompanyIP licensing entity — holder of six network-on-chip integrated circuit patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd.CompanySamsung Electronics and affiliates — global semiconductor and consumer electronics manufacturersSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantSamsung Austin Semiconductor, LLCCompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantSamsung Semiconductor, Inc.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantSamsung Electronics America, Inc.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantLenovo Group, Ltd.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantOnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAllison StrongAttorneyCounsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDaniel Steven StringfieldAttorneyCounsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDavid Richard KocanAttorneyCounsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselErica Jean Van LoonAttorneyCounsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJennifer HayesAttorneyCounsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMark Sterling ZhaiAttorneyCounsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMichael William GrayAttorneyCounsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselPeter KrusiewiczAttorneyCounsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselTimothy Paul MaloneyAttorneyCounsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselTy William WilsonAttorneyCounsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselVincent Cacho CapatiAttorneyCounsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselWilliam Ellsworth Davis , IIIAttorneyCounsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmNixon Peabody LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmNixon Peabody LLP (Los Angeles)Law FirmRepresenting Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmThe Davis Firm PC (Longview)Law FirmRepresenting Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAdam Michael JanesAttorneyCounsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAlan RabinowitzAttorneyCounsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAndrew Thompson (Tom) GorhamAttorneyCounsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAndrew William StinsonAttorneyCounsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselEdward C DonovanAttorneyCounsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselF. Christopher MizzoAttorneyCounsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselGregory S. ArovasAttorneyCounsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKarthik RavishankarAttorneyCounsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMelissa Richards SmithAttorneyCounsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMichael A. Pearson, Jr.AttorneyCounsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselStephen DeSalvoAttorneyCounsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmGillam & Smith LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmKirkland & Ellis LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmKirkland & Ellis LLP (Washington DC)Law FirmRepresenting Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmKirkland & Ellis LLP (NYC)Law FirmRepresenting Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmRamey & Flock, PCLaw FirmRepresenting Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Rodney GilstrapJudgeTexas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Network System Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC, and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” and with Plaintiff, the “Parties”). (Dkt. No. 157.) In the Motion, the Parties represent that they “have resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief against [Defendant] and [Defendants’] counterclaims for relief against Plaintiff asserted in this case.” (Id. at 1.) The Parties therefore request the Court to: 1. Dismiss without prejudice Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendants premised upon any Qualcomm1 chips (e.g., integrated circuits), or any chips supplied by any entity other than Defendants or their Affiliates. 2 1 “Qualcomm” means Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Incorporated, and/or any of their Affiliates. 2 “Affiliates” means any and all entities, for so long as the Control exists, that are Controlled, directly or indirectly, by the entity, wherein “Control” shall mean the legal, beneficial, and/or equitable ownership of more than fifty percent (50%) of (i) the voting power representing the right to vote for directors or other managing authority, (ii) equity ownership interest in an entity, or (iii) other ownership interest in an entity. Case 2:22-cv-00481-JRG Document 158 Filed 06/29/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7133 2 2. Dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s remaining claims for relief against Defendants. 3. Dismiss without prejudice Defendants’ claims, defenses or counterclaims for relief against Plaintiff. (Id. at 1–2.) The Parties also state that “all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses borne by the party incurring same.” (Id. at 2.) Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that (1) Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendants premised upon any Qualcomm chips (e.g., integrated circuits), or any chips supplied by any entity other than Defendants or their Affiliates are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; (2) Plaintiff’s remaining claims for relief against Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; and (3) Defendants’ claims, defenses or counterclaims for relief against Plaintiff are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case as no parties or claims remain.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:22-cv-00481, Texas Eastern District Court

The Court’s order grants a joint motion structured around a deliberate split: claims against Samsung’s own chips are extinguished with prejudice, while Qualcomm-chip-based claims survive for future proceedings. This language is precise — ‘remaining claims’ means all direct Samsung-chip infringement theories are permanently barred as to these defendants. The without-prejudice treatment of Qualcomm-chip claims, and Samsung’s own counterclaims, preserves optionality for both sides. The own-costs order is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which neither party secured a decisive litigation advantage before settlement.

PACER case 2:22-cv-00481 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US7594052B2 — Network-on-chip communication and integrated circuit interconnect

Publication No.US7594052B2
Application No.US10/598795
Patent details
ProductApparatus and method for communicating in an integrated circuit network-on-chip
Cited in actionDecember 19, 2022

Publication No.US8072893B2
Application No.US11/912175
Patent details
ProductIntegrated circuit and method for buffering to optimise burst length in networks on chips
Cited in actionDecember 19, 2022

Publication No.US7373449B2
Application No.US10/530267
Patent details
ProductIntegrated circuit and method for establishing transactions in a network-on-chip
Cited in actionDecember 19, 2022

Publication No.US7366818B2
Application No.US10/530266
Patent details
ProductIntegrated circuit and method of communication service mapping in a network-on-chip
Cited in actionDecember 19, 2022

Publication No.US7769893B2
Application No.US10/530425
Patent details
ProductIntegrated circuit comprising processing modules and a network for exchanging data
Cited in actionDecember 19, 2022

Publication No.US8086800B2
Application No.US11/569083
Patent details
ProductIntegrated circuit with data communication network and IC design method
Cited in actionDecember 19, 2022

The six asserted patents — US7594052B2, US8072893B2, US7373449B2, US7366818B2, US7769893B2, and US8086800B2 — collectively cover the architecture and operation of network-on-chip (NoC) interconnect systems embedded within integrated circuits. The patents address communication protocols between processing modules, data buffering strategies to optimise burst length, transaction establishment and service mapping, and IC-level design methodology. Their application numbers reflect filings across the mid-2000s, a foundational period for NoC research when multi-core SoC architectures were emerging as the dominant IC design paradigm.

For the semiconductor industry, these patents sit at the intersection of SoC interconnect design and multi-core processor communication — a space directly relevant to high-volume mobile application processors, AI accelerators, and baseband chips. Samsung’s Austin Semiconductor facility and its broader Exynos and application processor lines, as well as Qualcomm’s Snapdragon platforms, operate architectures consistent with the claimed NoC communication methods. Any company designing or procuring advanced SoCs should treat this patent family as an active enforcement risk, particularly given the explicit preservation of Qualcomm-chip claims in the dismissal order.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your SoC or NoC design be cleared against US7594052B2 and co-asserted patents?

Engineering teams designing network-on-chip interconnect architectures — or procurement teams sourcing application processors and baseband chips incorporating Qualcomm or custom NoC fabrics — face direct exposure from this patent family. NST’s Qualcomm-chip claims were explicitly preserved in the dismissal order, signalling active enforcement intent. Any product incorporating multi-core SoC interconnect technology consistent with the claimed communication protocols, buffering methods, or transaction-mapping architectures should be reviewed before market entry or next procurement cycle.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to map each of the six asserted patent claim sets against your specific chip architecture, identify published prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and monitor NST’s patent portfolio for continuations or divisionals not yet asserted. Automated claim-to-product mapping across US7594052B2, US8072893B2, US7373449B2, US7366818B2, US7769893B2, and US8086800B2 gives your team a defensible FTO position before the next enforcement action.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7594052B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar network-on-chip and semiconductor interconnect patent cases

E.D. Tex. network-on-chip and integrated circuit interconnect patent disputes involving semiconductor manufacturers and NPE assertion strategies.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Network System Technologies, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Eastern case history, Network System Technologies, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
NoC patent cases E.D. Tex.Samsung IP dismissals 2023–24Qualcomm chip patent actionsMulti-defendant SoC cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the network-on-chip IP landscape

NST’s bifurcated dismissal maps a replicable enforcement strategy for NoC patent holders targeting semiconductor supply chains.

E.D. Tex. remains the venue of choice for multi-entity NoC patent campaigns

Filing against five Samsung entities simultaneously in the Eastern District of Texas — including the Austin semiconductor arm — reflects a deliberate venue and defendant strategy. Judge Gilstrap’s docket consistently handles complex semiconductor patent disputes, and the 558-day timeline suggests the court’s case management did not force premature resolution. IP teams monitoring NoC enforcement should treat this court as an active risk jurisdiction.

Without-prejudice Qualcomm-chip carve-outs signal a second enforcement wave

The explicit preservation of Qualcomm-chip claims in the dismissal order is not boilerplate — it is a deliberate enforcement reservation. Companies whose products integrate Qualcomm-supplied silicon and that practice any of NST’s six NoC patents should treat this case as a precursor, not a conclusion. An FTO analysis against US7594052B2 and the five co-asserted patents is advisable before the next filing.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated intelligence on NoC patent enforcement strategy and E.D. Tex. semiconductor litigation trends.
Claim overlap analysisComparable licence benchmarksNext defendant risk ranking
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Network v Samsung — key questions answered

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

Track NoC patent enforcement risk before the next filing

NST’s Qualcomm-chip claims survive this dismissal. Run an FTO against all six asserted patents and set portfolio monitoring alerts to stay ahead of the next enforcement wave in network-on-chip semiconductor IP.

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.