Samsung v. Datang Mobile: Wireless Standards Patent Dispute Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
Samsung Electronics and its U.S. affiliate brought a four-patent infringement action against Chinese telecoms equipment maker Datang Mobile in the Virginia Eastern District Court, asserting patents covering LTE interference measurement, carrier aggregation, random access, and transmission methods. After 240 days, both parties agreed to dismiss all claims and defences with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs.
Samsung’s wireless-standards suit against Datang ends by mutual consent
On 31 October 2023, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint asserted four U.S. patents — US11057923B2, US9125071B2, US10785808B2, and US9585107B2 — covering core wireless-network technologies: interference measurement, PHR processing in carrier aggregation systems, random access procedures, and transmission methods involving terminal devices and base stations.
The case concluded on 27 June 2024 when the parties filed a stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with all of Samsung’s claims and all of Datang’s affirmative defences dismissed with prejudice. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, Samsung is barred from reasserting the same claims against Datang in a new action. Crucially, the mutual nature of the dismissal — including Datang’s defences — suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution, though no settlement terms are disclosed in the public record.
Resolution in 240 days is notably swift for a multi-patent wireless-standards case in the Eastern District of Virginia, a court already known for relatively brisk dockets. The compressed timeline is consistent with early settlement negotiations — possibly tied to broader cross-licensing discussions between two major participants in the global wireless-standards ecosystem. Whether any licence, royalty arrangement, or cross-licensing agreement underpins the dismissal is not reflected in the public record and remains unknown.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 240 days
240 days — resolved well below the median district court patent case lifecycle
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what the order means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may jointly stipulate to dismiss an action without a court ruling on the merits. Here, both Samsung’s claims and Datang’s affirmative defences were dismissed with prejudice — meaning the court entered a final disposition that prevents re-litigation of these specific claims. No judicial finding of infringement or invalidity was made.
No merits rulingWith prejudice bars Samsung from refiling these claims against Datang
A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Samsung cannot refile these four patent claims against Datang in a new U.S. action. This is a materially stronger concession by the plaintiff than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the option to sue again. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement or other consideration was exchanged.
Claim preclusion appliesDatang’s affirmative defences also dismissed — a bilateral finality
Notably, Datang also agreed to dismiss all its affirmative defences with prejudice. This symmetrical structure — both sides giving up their positions — is characteristic of a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral concession. Datang avoids any infringement finding but also forfeits formal invalidity or non-infringement arguments as a matter of record in this proceeding.
Bilateral with-prejudice closureNo public licence terms, but a cross-licensing resolution is plausible
Samsung and Datang are both active contributors to 3GPP wireless standards. Disputes between standards-essential patent holders frequently resolve through cross-licensing rather than litigation outcomes. The swift 240-day resolution, mutual with-prejudice dismissal, and each-party-bears-own-costs structure are all consistent with a broader commercial agreement — though this remains speculative based on the public record alone.
Likely private resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Global consumer electronics and telecoms company — holder of US11057923B2 and three related wireless patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd. | Company | Chinese wireless communications equipment manufacturer and LTE/5G standards contributorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ahmad Malik | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brianna Lynn Silverstein | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Burrell | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Robert Sabbagh | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David JF Gross | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Carpenter | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jun Zheng | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katlyn M. Moseley | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nima Hefazi | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Grimsrud | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Todd Michael Briggs | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zhaoxin Yin | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Faegre Baker Daniels LLP (NA-MN) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (DC-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (MN-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Faegre Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urguhart & Sullivan, LLP (CA-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (CA/LA-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (TX-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Quinn Emmanuel Urqhart & Sullivan LLP (Houston-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elliot James Hales | Attorney | Counsel for Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ellis Leon Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory S. Tamkin | Attorney | Counsel for Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hui Shen | Attorney | Counsel for Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Maral Jownghani Shoaei | Attorney | Counsel for Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Payton Elizabeth George | Attorney | Counsel for Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Thomas Kennedy | Attorney | Counsel for Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shannon L. Bjorklund | Attorney | Counsel for Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William George Cravens | Attorney | Counsel for Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dorsey & Whitney LLP (CO-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dorsey & Whitney LLP (DC-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dorsey & Whitney LLP (MN-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dorsey & Whitney LLP (UT-NA) | Law Firm | Representing Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC (leesburg) | Law Firm | Representing Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC (Vienna VA) | Law Firm | Representing Datang Mobile Communications Equipment Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Virginia Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal order reflects a purely procedural closure under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — no court made findings on infringement, validity, or damages. The with-prejudice designation on both sides is the operative legal term: Samsung’s claims are extinguished with claim-preclusive effect, and Datang’s affirmative defences are likewise foreclosed in this forum. The mutual cost-bearing provision removes any suggestion of a prevailing party, which also forecloses an exceptional-case fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US11057923B2 — Wireless interference measurement, carrier aggregation & random access
The four patents asserted in this case — US11057923B2, US9125071B2, US10785808B2, and US9585107B2 — cover fundamental wireless network procedures associated with LTE and 5G standards: interference measurement between network nodes, power headroom reporting (PHR) in carrier aggregation configurations, random access channel procedures, and downlink/uplink transmission coordination between terminal devices and base stations. These technical areas sit at the core of 3GPP-standardised radio access protocols, suggesting the patents may carry standards-essential patent (SEP) status or relate closely to standardised procedures.
For equipment manufacturers, network operators, and handset makers operating in the LTE-Advanced and 5G NR ecosystem, patents of this type represent significant licensing exposure. Samsung is an active SEP declarant in 3GPP standards bodies, and enforcement of patents in these technical domains against Chinese telecoms equipment makers — particularly those also active in standards development like Datang — is consistent with broader industry-level disputes over FRAND royalty rates and SEP portfolio valuations. Any company commercialising base stations, UE devices, or network infrastructure relying on LTE/5G air-interface standards should treat this patent family as a monitoring priority.
Should you run an FTO against US11057923B2 and Samsung’s wireless-standards portfolio?
Any product team developing or commercialising LTE-Advanced or 5G NR equipment — including base stations, user equipment, small cells, or radio access network components — should assess exposure to Samsung’s wireless-standards patent portfolio. The four patents asserted here cover interference measurement, carrier aggregation PHR, random access, and transmission methods: all procedures that are likely implemented in any compliant LTE/5G product. The fact that this case resolved without a merits finding means the patents remain in force and enforceable.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11057923B2, US9125071B2, US10785808B2, and US9585107B2 against your product’s technical specification, identify prosecution history estoppel, and surface related Samsung SEP declarations at 3GPP. For teams navigating FRAND licensing negotiations or evaluating exposure before entering the U.S. wireless-equipment market, Eureka’s landscape analysis provides the claim-level granularity needed to assess risk and prioritise design-around options.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11057923B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless-standards patent cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving LTE/5G standards-essential patents filed in the Eastern District of Virginia and comparable U.S. venues, including other Samsung wireless-portfolio enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the wireless-standards IP landscape
Standards-essential patent enforcement between global telecoms players rarely ends with a court judgment — and this case fits that pattern precisely.
With-prejudice dismissals signal private resolution, not capitulation
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice and each party bears its own costs, the structure almost never reflects a clean walkaway. For IP teams monitoring wireless-standards enforcement, this pattern suggests a negotiated licence or cross-licence was reached off the public record — a common outcome in 3GPP-adjacent disputes between major standards contributors.
Virginia Eastern District: a strategic venue for telecoms patent plaintiffs
Samsung’s choice of the Eastern District of Virginia — historically one of the fastest patent dockets in the U.S. — likely increased early settlement pressure on Datang. The 240-day resolution is consistent with the EDVa’s compressed scheduling orders, which leave defendants limited time before trial. R&D and IP teams should factor venue speed into both enforcement and defence strategies.
Samsung v Datang — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice means all of Samsung’s patent infringement claims and all of Datang’s affirmative defences are permanently extinguished. Under res judicata principles, Samsung cannot refile these specific claims against Datang in a new U.S. action. No court ruling was made on the merits of infringement or patent validity.
Samsung asserted four U.S. patents: US11057923B2 (interference measurement method and system), US9125071B2 (PHR processing in carrier aggregation systems), US10785808B2 (random access method and equipment), and US9585107B2 (transmission method involving terminal devices and base stations). All relate to core LTE/5G wireless network procedures.
The public record does not disclose a settlement agreement or its terms. However, the 240-day resolution, mutual with-prejudice dismissal, and each-party-bears-own-costs structure are consistent with a privately negotiated resolution — potentially a cross-licence — between two major 3GPP standards contributors. The Eastern District of Virginia’s compressed docket may also have accelerated settlement pressure.
No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice extinguishes only the claims between these specific parties in this action. Samsung’s patents — US11057923B2, US9125071B2, US10785808B2, and US9585107B2 — remain in force and enforceable against other parties. The dismissal includes no finding of invalidity or unenforceability.
Datang’s agreement to dismiss its affirmative defences — which likely included invalidity and non-infringement arguments — with prejudice is an unusual bilateral structure. While its practical effect is largely confined to this action, it signals that both parties sought a clean, symmetric closure, consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal by either side.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.