Stingray IP Solutions, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al

On January 29, 2021, Stingray IP Solutions, LLC (“Stingray”), represented by Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Hunter Scott Palmer, Marcus Benavides and Terry Afif Saad of Brangalone Conroy PC and Jack Wesley Hill from Ward, Smith, and Hill PLLC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”), represented by Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith, LLP, seeking treble damages with prejudgment and post judgment interest for alleged infringement of one or more claims of US Patents relating to wireless communication system and other technologies owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas with Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding.

In their complaint, Stingray alleges that Samsung has and continues to infringe, directly or indirectly, certain claims under U.S. Patent No. 6,958,986 (the “’986 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,961,310 (the “’310 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,980,537 (the “’537 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,027,426 (the “’426 patent”) owned by them (collectively “Asserted Patents”).

The Plaintiff notes that “the Asserted Patents cover various aspects of communication, routing, and organizing network nodes within wireless communications networks. The methods and apparatuses described in each of the Asserted Patents apply to mobile ad hoc networks—dynamic wireless networks without any routing structure, such as the networks created between Defendants’ IoT and smart home devices.”

The Plaintiff further believes upon information that “a significant portion of the operating revenue of Defendants is derived from the manufacture and sale of IoT and smart home devices” and that “Samsung’s IoT and smart home devices use ZigBee and Z-Wave protocols to enable communication between Samsung’s devices.” The Plaintiff further alleges that “The Asserted Patents cover wireless communication methods that are incorporated into ZigBee and Z-Wave protocols and the products that utilize them, such as Samsung’s IoT and smart home devices, their components, and processes related to the same.”

The Plaintiff lists out four reliefs for claim, one for the infringement of each of its Patents ‘986, ‘310, ‘537 and ‘426 respectively wherein the Plaintiff alleged that Samsung designs, develops, manufactures, assembles, and markets products that utilise one or more of the claims of each of the Patents listed above and by making, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing the products, their components, and/or products containing the same that incorporate the fundamental technologies covered by the Asserted Patents, Samsung infringes one or more of the claims of all the Patents listed above. As a result of the alleged infringing conduct of Samsung, Stingray alleges it has been damaged and shall be compensated in an amount that adequately compensates Stingray for Samsung’s infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

In their prayer for relief, Plaintiff requested the court to find that Defendants have infringed the Asserted Patents directly and/or indirectly by way of inducing infringement of such patents and to enter a judgement to account for damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the alleged acts of infringement by Defendants, and to require the Defendants to pay for damages and royalties along with prejudgment and post judgment interest. Plaintiff also requested the court to find this as an exceptional case so as to require defendants to pay the cost of action along with attorneys fees as well.

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.