Smart Mobile Technologies v. Samsung: Mobile Patent Dispute Ends in Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary: Smart Mobile Technologies v. Samsung
| Case Name | Smart Mobile Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. |
| Case Number | 6:21-cv-00701 (W.D. Texas) |
| Court | Western District of Texas, Judge Alan D. Albright |
| Duration | Jul 2021 – Jul 2024 3 years |
| Outcome | Dismissal with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Samsung Galaxy S, Note, J, A, and Tab series devices, and Galaxy Store platform |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE) holding a portfolio of mobile communications and networking patents. Its business model centers on enforcing IP rights against large technology manufacturers.
🛡️ Defendant
A global technology conglomerate and one of the world’s largest consumer electronics manufacturers, with the Galaxy product line comprising a dominant share of the global Android smartphone market.
Patents at Issue
This litigation involved twelve U.S. patents, spanning mobile communications, wireless networking, software-defined networking, and mobile streaming technology. These patents cover technologies foundational to modern smartphone functionality, including wireless connectivity protocols, mobile network management, and application delivery — capabilities embedded across Samsung’s consumer and enterprise device ecosystem.
- • US8761739B1 — Mobile communications technology
- • US9019946B1 — Wireless networking methods
- • US9614943B1 — Software-defined networking system
- • US8842653B1 — Mobile streaming technology
- • US8824434B2 — Wireless communication protocol
- • US9756168B1 — Mobile network management
- • US9191083B1 — Wireless data transmission
- • US9049119B2 — Mobile device application delivery
- • US8442501B1 — Network resource management
- • US8472937B1 — Mobile content delivery
- • US9084291B1 — Efficient wireless communication
- • US2180644A — Mobile device power management
Developing mobile or wireless products?
Check if your technology might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The Court granted the Joint Motion to Vacate Claim Construction Order and to Dismiss with Prejudice (July 15, 2024). All claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses were dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. No damages or injunctive relief were awarded, reflecting a negotiated resolution.
Key Legal Issues
The vacatur of the claim construction order is the most analytically significant element of this disposition. When parties jointly seek to vacate a claim construction ruling as part of a settlement, it typically signals one of two dynamics: either the patent holder received unfavorable claim constructions that would have narrowed infringement arguments, or the accused infringer faced sufficiently adverse constructions that settlement became economically preferable. In either scenario, the claim construction order effectively drove the case to resolution.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in mobile technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all 12 patents and related filings
- See which companies are most active in mobile tech patents
- Understand claim construction patterns in W.D. Texas
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own mobile technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Wireless & Mobile Networking
12 Patents at Issue
In mobile comms space
Design-Around Options
Available for most claims
✅ Key Takeaways
Multi-patent assertions against broad product portfolios increase leverage but also increase claim construction exposure across multiple patent families simultaneously.
Search related case law →Joint vacatur of claim construction orders is a negotiated tool — not merely procedural housekeeping — to manage precedential risk for both parties.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
Twelve U.S. patents were asserted, including US8761739B1, US9019946B1, US9614943B1, US8842653B1, US8824434B2, US9756168B1, US9191083B1, US9049119B2, US8442501B1, US8472937B1, US9084291B1, and US2180644A, covering mobile communications, wireless networking, and software-defined networking technologies.
The parties jointly requested vacatur as part of their settlement agreement. Vacating the order prevents it from serving as precedent in future disputes involving these or related patents, allowing both sides to manage precedential risk.
It reinforces that multi-patent PAE assertions against broad consumer device portfolios frequently resolve at the claim construction stage, and that joint vacatur is a viable tool for managing precedential risk on both sides. It also highlights persistent IP risk in wireless communications and mobile networking patents.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References & Further Reading
- PACER — Search Federal Court Records
- USPTO Patent Center — Official Patent Database
- Western District of Texas — Judge Alan D. Albright
- Fish & Richardson PC — IP Litigation Expertise
- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP — IP & Class Action Litigation
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.