Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Hertsel Akhavan
Infringement action filed 3 Feb 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and closed 29 May 2026, with US11503144B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US11503144B2
- Application no.
- US15/412023
- Case no.
- 2:26-cv-00584
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D.N.Y.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- New York
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 3 Feb 2026 – 29 May 2026
- Duration
- 115 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Systems to enhance data entry in mobile and fixed environment
- Validity challenges
- 3 on record
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Systems to enhance data entry in mobile and fixed environment
A mobile phone device includes a housing having a substantially rectangular shape wherein its height dimension substantially corresponds to a distance between an ear and a mouth of a user and wherein its width dimension is less than its height dimension. A display unit is integrated within the front surface of the mobile phone device. The display unit substantially entirely covers the front surface of the mobile phone device. The mobile phone device does not include a physical key on the front surface.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 15 Nov 2022
- Earliest priority
- 18 Apr 2003
- Est. expiry
- 19 May 2025
- Validity challenges
- 3 on record90016162 · EPRIPR2025-00529 · Patentability · filed by Samsung Electronics Co LtdIPR2025-00528 · Patentability · filed by Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- GHASSABIAN, BENJAMIN FIROOZ
- Classification
- H04M1/02G06F3/01G06F3/04886G06F3/0482
- Examiner
- JAIN, ANKUR
Parties of record
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Robert C. Brady
- Firm
- The Law Offices of Robert C. Brady, P.C.
Hertsel Akhavan
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Robert C. Brady | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Areviewofthe docket in thiscasereveals that itmay haveincorrectly been assigned asacivilmatter rather than a miscellaneous matter. The movant in thiscasesought to compelcompliance with a subpoenaagainst the non-movants. On February 11, 2026 astipulation and order wasentered resolving discovery disputes in this matterand scheduling depositions for February or March of 2026. Itappears that the matter is resolved. Therefore, thiscaseis herebyDISMISSEDwithout prejudiceto its reinstatementshould the discovery issues not be resolved. Barring any further requests foran extensionwithin 90 days ofthis order, this dismissalshall deemed with prejudice”
Case 2:26-cv-00584 · E.D.N.Y. · closed 29 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:26-cv-00584?
2:26-cv-00584 is a patent infringement action brought by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. against Hertsel Akhavan, filed on 3 Feb 2026 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The case closed on 29 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 2:26-cv-00584?
US11503144B2 (“Systems to enhance data entry in mobile and fixed environment”), assigned to KEYLESS LICENSING LLC, currently inactive. The record also lists Systems to enhance data entry in mobile and fixed environment.
How was case 2:26-cv-00584 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Areviewofthe docket in thiscasereveals that itmay haveincorrectly been assigned asacivilmatter rather than a miscellaneous matter. The movant in thiscasesought to compelcompliance with a subpoenaagainst the non-movants. On February 11, 2026 astipulation and order wasentered resolving discovery disputes in this matterand scheduling depositions for February or March of 2026. Itappears that the matter is resolved. Therefore, thiscaseis herebyDISMISSEDwithout prejudiceto its reinstatementshould the discovery issues not be resolved. Barring any further requests foran extensionwithin 90 days ofthis
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 2:26-cv-00584 take?
115 calendar days, from filing on 3 Feb 2026 to closure on 29 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:26-cv-00584?
Robert C. Brady is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Samsung Electronics.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:26-cv-00584 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.