Book a demo

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

Try now
Proxense v. Samsung Electronics et al. | Patent Lawsuit 6:21-cv-00210

Proxense, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.

6:21-cv-00210 W.D. Tex. Closed 5 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 5 Mar 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 19 Jan 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
6:21-cv-00210
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
Alan D Albright
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
5 Mar 2021 – 19 Jan 2023
Duration
685 days
Basis of termination
Consent Judgment
Products & marks
Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication · Hybrid device having a personal digital key and receiver-decoder circuit and methods of use
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:21-cv-00210, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8352730B2 Active App. US11/314199

Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication

Systems and methods are provided for an integrated device that persistently (or permanently) stores biometric data for a user in a tamper-resistant format. Subsequently, scan data collected from a user (e.g., a finger-print) can be compared against the biometric data. Once the user has been verified by the integrated device, a code can be wirelessly transmitted for authentication. The authentication module sends the code to a trusted key authority. The trusted key authority checks a list of enrolled integrated devices for a match. If there is a match, the authentication module sends a message to an application to allow access by the user. The trusted key authority also stores a profile associated with the code. The profile can contain user information such as name, age, account numbers, preferences, etc. and can also describe the status of the integrated device.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
8 Jan 2013
Earliest priority
20 Dec 2004
Est. expiry
15 Jul 2028
Validity challenges
8 on recordIPR2024-01486 · Patentability · filed by Apple, Inc.IPR2024-00775 · Patentability · filed by MicrosoftIPR2024-01326 · Patentability · filed by Microsoft90015052 · EPR · filed by MARISSA R. DUCCA QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN , LLPIPR2024-01333 · Patentability · filed by AppleIPR2021-01444 · Other · filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc90016114 · EPRIPR2024-00232 · Patentability · filed by Apple
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F21/00H04L29/06
Prosecution counsel
Hecht Partners LLP
Examiner
SMITHERS, MATTHEW
US8352730B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US8352730B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US10698989B2 Inactive App. US15/049060

Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication

Systems and methods verifying a user during authentication of an integrated device. In one embodiment, the system includes an integrated device and an authentication unit. The integrated device stores biometric data of a user and a plurality of codes and other data values comprising a device ID code uniquely identifying the integrated device and a secret decryption value in a tamper proof format, and when scan data is verified by comparing the scan data to the biometric data, wirelessly sends one or more codes and other data values including the device ID code. The authentication unit receives and sends the one or more codes and the other data values to an agent for authentication, and receives an access message from the agent indicating that the agent successfully authenticated the one or more codes and other data values and allows the user to access an application.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
30 Jun 2020
Earliest priority
14 Feb 2005
Est. expiry
20 Dec 2025
Validity challenges
4 on recordIPR2024-00600 · Patentability · filed by Apple, Inc.90015054 · EPR · filed by MARISSA R. DUCCA, QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLPIPR2025-00600 · Patentability · filed by Apple, Inc.IPR2021-01448 · filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F21/00H04L9/32G06F21/32G07C9/25G06F21/35G05B1/00
Prosecution counsel
Patent Law Works/Proxense
Examiner
VU, PHY ANH T
US10698989B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10698989B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2

Also asserted in this case

3 more

The docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.

Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Plaintiff

Proxense, LLC

Core tech
G06F21/00H04L29/06H04L9/32G06F21/32
Counsel
Brian D. Melton · Bryce T. Barcelo · Conor McDonough · David L. Hecht · Erick Scott Robinson · Geoffrey L. Harrison · Lear Jiang · Maxim Price · Meng Xi · Yi Wen Wu
Firm
Hecht Partners, LLP, Spencer Fane LLP, Susman & Godfrey, LLP
Defendant

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
G. Blake Thompson · Iman Lordgooei · J. Mark Mann · Jason C. Williams · John T. Mckee · Kevin Hardy · Kevin P.B. Johnson · Marissa Ducca · Mark Tung · Ognjen Zivojnovic · Scott L. Cole · Scott L. Watson · Sean San-Chul Pak · Victoria F. Maroulis
Firm
Mann, Tindel & Thompson Attorneys at Law, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP
Also named
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

“Plaintiff Proxense, LLC and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., stipulate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) that the Parties have reached a resolution of this matter and this action should be dismissed with prejudice as to all claims, causes of action and parties, with each party bearing its own fees, expenses, and costs.”

Case 6:21-cv-00210 · W.D. Tex. · closed 19 January 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 6:21-cv-00210?

6:21-cv-00210 is a patent infringement action brought by Proxense, LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., filed on 5 Mar 2021 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 19 January 2023.

Which patents were asserted in 6:21-cv-00210?

US8352730B2 (“Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication”), assigned to PROXENSE, LLC, currently active; US10698989B2 (“Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication”), assigned to PROXENSE, LLC, currently inactive; US9049188B1 (“Hybrid device having a personal digital key and receiver-decoder circuit and methods of use”), assigned to PROXENSE, LLC; US9235700B1 (“Hybrid device having a personal digital key and receiver-decoder circuit and methods of use”), assigned to PROXENSE, LLC; US9298905B1 (“Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication”), assigned to PROXENSE, LLC. The record also lists Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication and Hybrid device having a personal digital key and receiver-decoder circuit and methods of use.

How was case 6:21-cv-00210 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: “Plaintiff Proxense, LLC and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., stipulate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) that the Parties have reached a resolution of this matter and this action should be dismissed with prejudice as to all claims, causes of action and parties, with each party bearing its own fees, expenses, and costs.”

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 6:21-cv-00210 take?

685 calendar days, from filing on 5 Mar 2021 to closure on 19 January 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:21-cv-00210?

Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Brian D. Melton, Bryce T. Barcelo, Conor McDonough, David L. Hecht, Erick Scott Robinson, Geoffrey L. Harrison, Lear Jiang, Maxim Price, Meng Xi and Yi Wen Wu are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Proxense. G. Blake Thompson, Iman Lordgooei, J. Mark Mann, Jason C. Williams, John T. Mckee, Kevin Hardy, Kevin P.B. Johnson, Marissa Ducca, Mark Tung, Ognjen Zivojnovic, Scott L. Cole, Scott L. Watson, Sean San-Chul Pak and Victoria F. Maroulis appear for defendant Samsung Electronics.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:21-cv-00210 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:21-cv-00210 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.