5G IP Holdings LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. et al

On August 6, 2021, 5G IP Holdings, LLC (“5GIP” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Adam Auchter Allgood, Alan Michael Fisch, and Ken K. Fung of Fisch Sigler, LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Research America (collectively, “Defendants” or “Samsung”) seeking damages and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 for the alleged infringement of the United States Patents owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas with Judge Sean D. Jordan presiding.

The Plaintiff filed the complaint for the alleged infringement of the United States Patent No. 10,624,150 entitled “Radio Resource Control Connection Resume Method of Wireless Communication System” (“the ’150 Patent”); U.S. Patent no. 10,813,163 entitled “Devices and Methods for Controlling Discontinuous Reception in New Radio” (“the ’163 Patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,868,649 entitled “Method for Signaling Bandwidth Part (BWP) indicators and Radio Communication Equipment Using the Same” (“the ’649 Patent”) (collectively referred as, Patents-in-suit) owned by Plaintiff. 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Defendant Samsung has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ’150 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq., directly and/or indirectly, by, using, offering for sale, or selling in the United States, and/or importing into the United States without authority or license, products that implement and support the 5G Standard including but not limited to 3GPP TS 38.304 and 38.331.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Samsung has and continues to indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’150 Patent by knowingly and intentionally inducing others, including Samsung customers, resellers, distributors, retailers, and end-users, to directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States products that include infringing technology, such as Samsung 5G phones and tablets.”

Further, the Plaintiff alleged that, “Samsung was heavily involved in the development of the 5G Standard. And FGI unambiguously declared the ’150 Patent as standard essential to the 5G Standard. Thus, Samsung knew or should have known of the ’150 Patent and of its infringement. And Samsung also had actual knowledge of the ’150 Patent and its infringement through the filing and service of this Complaint.”

Similar allegations have been made by the Plaintiff against the other Patents in suit.

There are three claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff, one for the alleged infringement of each of the Patents-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court to pass an order for an award to Plaintiff 5GIP of such damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 as proven against Defendants for infringement of the ’150 Patent, ’163 Patent, and ’649 Patent, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest with an increase in the award of damages to Plaintiff 5GIP up to three times the amount of its actual damages for Defendants’ willful infringement and costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 285.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.