Truesight Communications v. Samsung Electronics — Dismissed With Prejudice (82 Days)
Truesight Communications LLC filed a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US8977783B2 against a broad range of Galaxy smartphones, tablets, foldables, and laptops. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice just 82 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Broad Galaxy portfolio targeted, then swiftly abandoned with prejudice
On August 1, 2025, Truesight Communications LLC filed Case No. 2:25-cv-00759 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most active patent benches in the United States. The complaint asserted US8977783B2 against an exceptionally wide range of Samsung products spanning Galaxy S, A, Note, Z Fold, Tab S, Tab A, Tab Active, and Galaxy Book lines — collectively representing a substantial share of Samsung’s consumer electronics portfolio sold in the US market.
Before Samsung had filed an answer or any summary judgment motion, Truesight filed a Notice of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), voluntarily dismissing all claims with prejudice. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal on October 22, 2025. Each party was ordered to bear its own litigation costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses, with all other pending relief denied as moot.
The 82-day lifespan and pre-answer timing suggest the parties likely reached a resolution — whether a licensing arrangement, a covenant not to sue, or simply a strategic withdrawal — before any substantive merits briefing. The public record is silent on the commercial terms. The with-prejudice designation is significant: Truesight is permanently barred from asserting the same patent claims against Samsung in a future action, making any underlying agreement highly consequential for Samsung’s long-term freedom to operate.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 82 days
82 days — well below the median EDTX patent case duration of ~2 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 filing means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice — a final, merits-binding exit
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The addition of ‘with prejudice’ converts what is normally a plaintiff-friendly procedural tool into a final adjudication on the merits. The court’s role is limited to accepting and acknowledging the filing — which Judge Gilstrap did here — making the dismissal immediately effective and appealable only in narrow circumstances.
Procedurally finalTruesight permanently surrenders its infringement claims against Samsung
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata principles. Truesight Communications cannot re-file the same US8977783B2 infringement claims against Samsung Electronics or Samsung Electronics America in any federal court. This is the strongest possible exit concession a patent plaintiff can make outside of a consent judgment. Whether Truesight received any consideration — e.g., a lump-sum licence fee — in exchange for this permanent bar is not disclosed in the public docket.
Claims extinguishedSamsung secures permanent immunity from this specific patent claim set
Samsung Electronics and Samsung Electronics America obtain a complete, permanent bar against Truesight reasserting US8977783B2 claims covering the Galaxy S, A, Z Fold, Tab S, Tab A, Tab Active, Note, and Galaxy Book product lines. Because the dismissal came before any answer, Samsung avoided creating any litigation record or claim constructions that could be used adversely in parallel proceedings. Each party bearing its own fees suggests neither side extracted a cost penalty — consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral capitulation.
Full IP clearancePre-answer settlement pattern suggests licensing transaction behind the scenes
The 82-day pre-answer timeline is consistent with rapid licensing discussions that resolved before any substantive litigation costs accumulated. For the broader Samsung ecosystem — OEM partners, component suppliers, and enterprise customers — the with-prejudice dismissal provides strong assurance that US8977783B2 will not resurface as a litigation risk from Truesight. Competitors and other device manufacturers in the connected-device space who have not yet been approached by Truesight should review their own exposure to US8977783B2.
Licensing signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Truesight Communications, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8977783B2 covering communications/connectivity technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — global consumer electronics manufacturer, Galaxy device portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Andrew Rubino | Attorney | Counsel for Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Mondelli , III | Attorney | Counsel for Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rubino Ip | Law Firm | Representing Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rubino Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Truesight Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts Truesight’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice without any merits determination. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is plaintiff-initiated — not court-imposed — which typically reflects an agreed resolution rather than a forced concession. The explicit instruction that each party bears its own costs and attorneys’ fees, combined with the denial-as-moot of all pending relief, confirms a clean slate exit. No claim constructions, invalidity findings, or infringement holdings were entered, leaving US8977783B2’s validity and scope legally intact for any future assertion against unrelated third parties.
US8977783B2 — communications and connectivity technology patent
US8977783B2 (application no. US12/906938) is a granted US utility patent asserted against a sweeping range of Samsung consumer electronics including smartphones, tablets, foldables, laptops, and Chromebooks. The breadth of the accused product list — spanning Galaxy S through Galaxy Book — is consistent with claims directed at fundamental communications or data-transfer functionality embedded across modern connected devices rather than a narrow product-specific implementation.
The strategic value of US8977783B2 to a patent assertion entity lies precisely in its apparent applicability across multiple product categories and generations. Samsung’s decision to resolve the matter in 82 days before substantive litigation commenced, rather than challenging the patent’s validity through IPR or district court proceedings, means the patent remains unscathed in the public record. For competing OEMs — particularly Android device makers, laptop manufacturers, and chip vendors whose products share underlying platform technologies — this patent now presents an active, unlitigated risk.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8977783B2?
Any company developing or commercialising connected consumer electronics — smartphones, tablets, foldables, laptops, or Chromebooks — that shares platform-level communication or connectivity architectures with Samsung’s Galaxy portfolio should treat US8977783B2 as a live risk. The patent was not challenged on validity during this litigation, and the with-prejudice dismissal against Samsung does not bind any other defendant. Truesight, represented by Fabricant LLP, has demonstrated capacity and willingness to file broad multi-product infringement actions in EDTX.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US8977783B2 claims against your specific product architecture, flag overlapping claim elements, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and surface any continuation or family members that may pose additional exposure. Running a structured FTO now — before a demand letter arrives — preserves negotiating leverage and avoids the compressed timelines that EDTX scheduling orders impose on defendants.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8977783B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar EDTX patent assertions in connected-device and smartphone IP
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting communications and connectivity patents against consumer electronics OEMs in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the connected-device patent landscape
A rapid, with-prejudice exit against Samsung’s full Galaxy portfolio reveals both the leverage and limits of broad-scope patent assertion in EDTX.
With-prejudice dismissal signals a likely licensing event, not capitulation
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice pre-answer and without a fee award against either party, commercial logic strongly suggests a licensing transaction occurred. Companies in the Samsung supply chain or those holding similar device portfolios should treat this as a signal to audit their own US8977783B2 exposure before Truesight pursues additional defendants.
EDTX remains a high-pressure venue even for large defendants
Samsung resolved this action in 82 days before Judge Gilstrap — one of the most plaintiff-friendly schedules in US patent litigation. The speed of resolution suggests Samsung weighed litigation costs and scheduling risk at EDTX against early settlement. For any defendant served in this district, early commercial resolution analysis is critical even when technical merits are strong.
Truesight v Samsung — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice means Truesight Communications LLC is permanently barred from reasserting US8977783B2 infringement claims against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in any future proceeding. It operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata, even though no court ever ruled on the patent’s validity or infringement.
The complaint accused a broad range of Samsung devices including Galaxy S series (S9 through S25 Ultra), Galaxy A series, Galaxy Note9, Galaxy Z Fold series, Galaxy Tab S and A series, Tab Active series, and the Galaxy Book laptop family including Chromebook models. This represents one of the widest product scopes seen in a single EDTX patent filing against Samsung.
Samsung did not obtain a court ruling in its favour — rather, Truesight voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice before Samsung answered the complaint. The practical effect is that Samsung is permanently clear of these specific claims, but no validity or non-infringement finding was entered. The commercial terms of any resolution remain undisclosed.
Truesight was represented by Fabricant LLP (New York) and Rubino Law LLC, with attorneys Alfred Ross Fabricant, John Andrew Rubino, Michael Mondelli III, Peter Lambrianakos, and Vincent J. Rubino III. Samsung was represented by Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP, a well-known EDTX defence firm.
No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice only binds the named parties — Truesight and Samsung. It does not constitute a validity determination and does not estop Truesight from asserting US8977783B2 against other defendants. The patent’s claims remain legally intact, and other device manufacturers with similar communications or connectivity architectures in their products remain potentially exposed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.