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.
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.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 558 days
558 days — longer than the median E.D. Tex. patent case, suggesting substantive negotiation before resolution
Split dismissal: what the with- and without-prejudice terms mean
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 dismissalNST 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 preservedSamsung 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 closedNoC 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 signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Network System Technologies, LLC | Company | IP licensing entity — holder of six network-on-chip integrated circuit patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics and affiliates — global semiconductor and consumer electronics manufacturersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lenovo Group, Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Allison Strong | Attorney | Counsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel Steven Stringfield | Attorney | Counsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Richard Kocan | Attorney | Counsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Erica Jean Van Loon | Attorney | Counsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Hayes | Attorney | Counsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark Sterling Zhai | Attorney | Counsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael William Gray | Attorney | Counsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Krusiewicz | Attorney | Counsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Paul Maloney | Attorney | Counsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ty William Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent Cacho Capati | Attorney | Counsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Ellsworth Davis , III | Attorney | Counsel for Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nixon Peabody LLP | Law Firm | Representing Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nixon Peabody LLP (Los Angeles) | Law Firm | Representing Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Davis Firm PC (Longview) | Law Firm | Representing Network System Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam Michael Janes | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alan Rabinowitz | 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 | Andrew William Stinson | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Edward C Donovan | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | F. Christopher Mizzo | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory S. Arovas | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Karthik Ravishankar | 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 | Michael A. Pearson, Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen DeSalvo | 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 ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kirkland & Ellis LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Washington DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kirkland & Ellis LLP (NYC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ramey & Flock, PC | 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 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.
US7594052B2 — Network-on-chip communication and integrated circuit interconnect
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.
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.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7594052B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →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.
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 Apparatus and method for communicating in an integrated circuit-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.
DecidedNetwork System Technologies, LLC’s broader IP enforcement history
Network System Technologies, LLC’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat 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.
Six-patent assertion portfolios amplify claim construction leverage in settlement
Asserting six related NoC patents simultaneously creates a claim construction burden that incentivises settlement before Markman — each patent adds interpretive uncertainty, discovery cost, and litigation risk for defendants. Patent aggregators and NPEs operating in the semiconductor interconnect space are increasingly using multi-patent bundles as a settlement lever rather than a trial strategy. Understanding which claim families overlap in scope is critical for defendants evaluating early resolution.
Own-costs orders mask undisclosed financial terms — model the confidential consideration
The own-costs order confirms only that neither party secured a fee-shifting award. It says nothing about confidential licence fees, cross-licence grants, or covenants not to sue that may have been exchanged. In E.D. Tex. settlements of this complexity, undisclosed consideration is the norm. IP valuation teams should model the likely licence range based on comparable NoC patent transactions and the defendant’s chip revenue base before the next assertion cycle.
Network v Samsung — key questions answered
The court granted a joint motion to dismiss on June 29, 2024. NST’s claims against Samsung-manufactured chips were dismissed with prejudice — those infringement theories are permanently extinguished and cannot be re-filed against these defendants. Claims tied to Qualcomm-supplied chips were dismissed without prejudice, meaning NST retains the right to assert those theories in future proceedings.
NST asserted six U.S. patents: US7594052B2, US8072893B2, US7373449B2, US7366818B2, US7769893B2, and US8086800B2. All six cover network-on-chip integrated circuit technologies including communication protocols, data buffering, transaction establishment, service mapping, and IC design methods for multi-core architectures.
The parties’ joint motion explicitly carved out claims ‘premised upon any Qualcomm chips or any chips supplied by any entity other than Defendants or their Affiliates’ for without-prejudice dismissal. This structure is consistent with NST preserving its right to pursue Qualcomm Technologies or other chipset suppliers in separate proceedings, while resolving direct liability with Samsung’s own-manufactured silicon.
The order states each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. This confirms neither side obtained a fee-shifting award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or Rule 54. It does not, however, disclose whether confidential licence fees, royalties, cross-licences, or covenants not to sue were exchanged — those terms, if any, remain outside the public record.
The joint motion and the court’s dismissal order name only the Samsung entities (Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Electronics America, Samsung Austin Semiconductor, and Samsung Semiconductor) as the settling defendants. Lenovo Group and OnePlus Technology were named in the original complaint but are not referenced in the dismissal order, suggesting their status may have been resolved separately or that claims against them were addressed through other procedural vehicles not reflected in this order.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.