Village Green Technologies v. Samsung: Consent Judgment After 410 Days
Village Green Technologies, LLC filed suit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two patents covering multiple-display management for portable electronic devices. The case closed by consent judgment 410 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
Patent dispute over portable device display tech ends by agreement
Village Green Technologies, LLC filed this patent infringement action on March 31, 2022 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-cv-00099) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, targeting Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its US subsidiary Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The asserted patents — US9864401B2 and US10620663B2 — relate to multiple displays for portable electronic devices and methods of use, a technology domain central to modern smartphone and tablet product lines.
The recorded basis of termination is a Consent Judgment. The docket order states that the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), representing that the case had been resolved, and the court granted that motion, dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. The specific terms of the parties' resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed approximately 13.5 months after filing, before any publicly recorded trial proceedings. The cost allocation — each party bearing its own fees — is the only financial term visible in the public record. What drove the resolution, and any licensing or other commercial terms agreed between the parties, are not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 410 days
410 days — filed March 2022, closed May 2023, in one of the busiest patent venues in the US
US9864401B2 & US10620663B2 — multiple displays for portable electronic devices
If your R&D or product team is developing or shipping portable electronic devices with multiple displays, split-screen interfaces, or multi-display content management, these two patents represent a live enforcement risk. Village Green Technologies has already brought and resolved a case against Samsung; the patents remain valid and enforceable. Device OEMs, platform developers, and ODMs in the smartphone, tablet, and foldable-device segments are the most directly exposed.
Official order — verbatim text
The court order grants a joint Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss with prejudice, entered as a consent judgment on the docket. All claims and counterclaims between Village Green Technologies and both Samsung entities are extinguished with prejudice, and no cost award is made to either side. The specific terms underlying the parties' represented resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
What a consent judgment means in US patent litigation
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment on terms agreed by the parties, giving it the full force of a judicial order rather than a private contract. Here, the mechanism was a joint Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss with prejudice, which the court granted. The dismissal with prejudice means neither party can re-litigate the same claims. The specific agreed terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Court-entered, binding and finalVillage Green Technologies: case ends with prejudice bar in place
As plaintiff and patent holder, Village Green Technologies secured a court-entered resolution that closes this action with prejudice against Samsung. The patents US9864401B2 and US10620663B2 remain in force and are not invalidated by this outcome. Whether any licensing arrangement or other commercial terms were part of the resolution is not disclosed in the available record.
Patents remain in forceSamsung: all claims dismissed, each party bears its own costs
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. exit this litigation with all claims and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice. The cost order — each side bearing its own fees — is the only financial term on the public record. The dismissal with prejudice prevents Village Green from re-filing the same patent claims against Samsung in this court on these facts.
No cost award either wayDisplay-management patent risk remains live for the broader market
The consent judgment resolves only this dispute between these parties. The asserted patents — covering multiple-display functionality for portable electronics — are not adjudicated as invalid or unenforceable, meaning Village Green retains the ability to assert them against other market participants. Companies in the smartphone and tablet space with comparable multi-display features should note this outcome and consider their own exposure to these patent families.
Patents enforceability intactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Village Green Technologies, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carl Irwin Brundidge | Attorney | Counsel for Village Green Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Evan Moore | Attorney | Counsel for Village Green Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Todd Hughey | Attorney | Counsel for Village Green Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Brundidge & Stanger, PC | Law Firm | Representing Village Green Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Hughey Law Firm, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Village Green Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles H. Suh | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher T. Blackford | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gerald F. Ivey | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Parmanand K. Sharma | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert King High , III | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shawn S. Chang | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garret Dunner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Reston) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP - Atlanta | Law Firm | Representing 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 ↗ |
R&D signals in the portable multi-display technology space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Village Green Technologies v. Samsung dispute over portable multi-display technology.
Village Green's display patent family: scope and continuation risk
Village Green Technologies holds at least two granted patents (US9864401B2 and US10620663B2) with distinct application numbers, suggesting a deliberate multi-application prosecution strategy around portable multi-display technology. Monitoring the prosecution status of related continuations and divisionals in this family is advisable for any competitor in the portable electronics display space.
Active patent familyFiling trends: multi-display management for mobile devices
Multiple-display and foldable-display management is one of the fastest-growing patent filing categories in consumer electronics. As smartphone OEMs compete on multi-screen and foldable form factors, the density of overlapping IP in display-switching, content mirroring, and split-view rendering is increasing. Companies entering this space should map the claim landscape before committing to product architecture.
High filing densitySamsung's defensive IP position in multi-display technology
Samsung Electronics holds an extensive patent portfolio in display technology, including multi-display and foldable interface innovations tied to its Galaxy Z Fold and Galaxy S series. Understanding the scope and density of Samsung's own defensive filings in this domain can reveal both freedom-to-operate corridors and areas where third-party patent holders may find enforceability gaps.
Samsung display IP depthAdjacent claim space: display-switching UX and power management
The asserted patents focus on multi-display configurations and methods of use, but adjacent areas — such as power management across multiple displays, adaptive refresh rate switching, and AI-driven content reflow between screens — may represent lower-density patent spaces with innovation opportunity. R&D teams can use patent landscape analysis to identify white space before filing.
Innovation white spaceSimilar portable display patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore patent infringement actions asserting multi-display and portable device interface patents in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap and related NPE enforcement trends.
What this case signals for the portable display IP landscape
A consent judgment against Samsung in E.D. Texas suggests these display-management patents carried sufficient weight to drive a negotiated resolution.
E.D. Texas consent judgments signal credible patent leverage
When an NPE secures a consent judgment against a top-tier defendant like Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas, it typically signals the asserted patents withstood early scrutiny. Companies deploying multi-display features in portable devices should assess whether US9864401B2 or US10620663B2 reads on their products before enforcement activity broadens.
Both patents survive — enforcement risk extends beyond Samsung
Neither US9864401B2 nor US10620663B2 was invalidated or ruled unenforceable in this proceeding. Village Green Technologies retains full enforcement rights. Any company in the portable electronics segment offering multi-display or split-display functionality should evaluate its freedom-to-operate position against these patent families.
Village v Samsung — key questions answered
The case was resolved by consent judgment. The recorded basis of termination is a Consent Judgment. The docket order reflects a joint Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss with prejudice, which the court granted, dismissing all claims and counterclaims. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The specific terms of the parties' resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
Village Green Technologies asserted two US patents: US9864401B2 (application number US14/589853) and US10620663B2 (application number US15/850063). Both relate to multiple displays for a portable electronic device and methods of use. Neither patent was adjudicated as invalid or unenforceable in this proceeding.
The dismissal with prejudice bars Village Green from re-asserting the same claims against Samsung on these facts. However, the patents remain in force and Village Green retains the ability to enforce them against other parties. The specific terms of the resolution between Village Green and Samsung are not disclosed in the available record.
The Eastern District of Texas, particularly before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is one of the most frequently chosen venues for patent infringement actions in the US, known for its experienced patent docket and plaintiff-favourable procedural history. The case was filed on March 31, 2022 and closed May 15, 2023 — a duration of 410 days.
Yes. The consent judgment and underlying dismissal with prejudice resolve this specific dispute between Village Green Technologies and Samsung. Neither patent was declared invalid or unenforceable as part of this proceeding. Both patents remain active and enforceable, representing a live risk for other companies in the portable multi-display device space.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.