Samsung Hit with $524 Million in Back-to-Back Patent Verdicts in East Texas

Samsung Hit with $524 Million in Back-to-Back Patent Verdicts in East Texas

Samsung just took a one-two punch in East Texas. Over the course of 11 days, two separate federal juries ordered the tech giant to pay a combined $524 million for patent infringement. It’s a costly reminder that this rural district—known for favoring plaintiffs—remains one of the toughest legal battlegrounds for major corporations.

Unlike routine court wins and losses, these verdicts highlight something deeper: where a company gets sued can matter just as much as what the patents cover. And in East Texas, juries often side with patent holders, especially when the defendant is a multinational brand.

East Texas: Small Region, Outsized Power

The Eastern District of Texas handles about 25% of all U.S. patent lawsuits, despite representing only a sliver of the population. Why the flood of cases? Speedy trials, experienced local firms, and juries that regularly reward plaintiffs make it an attractive venue.

That environment worked to the advantage of Collision Communications Inc., a New Hampshire company that won the larger award—$445.5 million. The jury decided Samsung willfully infringed four patents related to wireless interference reduction across Galaxy phones, laptops, and devices with 4G, 5G, and Wi-Fi. The jurors deliberated for only a few hours before siding with the plaintiff.

Just two weeks earlier, the same courthouse delivered another blow. Anonymous Media Research Holdings LLC secured $78.5 million over patents tied to smart TV media tracking. In both trials, Samsung’s attempts to invalidate the patents failed.

Even though neither plaintiff operates in East Texas, Samsung’s chip plant in Austin gives legal jurisdiction. And plaintiffs win about 80% of trials here—much higher than the 60% national average.

Local Strategy, Big Results

These victories didn’t happen by accident. Local law firms, especially Miller Fair Henry in Longview, specialize in helping outside attorneys tailor their approach to East Texas juries. They assisted both plaintiff teams with jury selection and witness testimony.

Andrea Fair, one of the partners involved, celebrated their success and emphasized how their local expertise contributes to big verdicts.

Juries in this region often view patent holders as independent inventors fighting against powerful corporations. That mindset, combined with a willful infringement finding in the Collision case, opens the door to potentially tripled damages—though the judge has final say.

Meanwhile, the patent litigation ecosystem has become a lucrative local industry, supporting thousands of jobs and thriving on fast-moving “rocket docket” timelines.

A Long History of Legal Setbacks

These latest rulings continue a troubling pattern for Samsung in East Texas. Over the past few years, the company has been hit by multiple judgments: $303 million in mid-2024, $192 million later that year, and $279 million resolved around the same time as the Anonymous Media decision.

With 2025 only starting, Samsung’s patent payout total is already nearing $1 billion. Individually, $524 million equals about 6% of one quarter’s operating profit—not fatal but hard to ignore.

The patents at issue aren’t flashy. They cover core technologies: wireless interference reduction and TV viewer measurement. Both were originally developed by other firms and later acquired by the plaintiffs—classic examples of non-practicing entities that make money through licensing and lawsuits rather than products.

Is This an Innovation Penalty?

Every time a lawsuit like this hits the headlines, the same debate resurfaces: does the patent system encourage innovation or punish it?

Critics say companies that don’t build anything extract billions—about $29 billion a year—from those who do. For a company like Samsung that launches dozens of new devices annually, each new feature means another potential patent risk.

Defending these cases, buying patents, and signing cross-licenses reportedly costs Samsung $2–3 billion a year. That’s money that could be used for R&D or lower prices.

What Investors Really Care About

From Wall Street’s point of view, the verdicts matter—but they’re not catastrophic. Samsung has plenty of cash, and most large awards shrink after appeals. Analysts predict the $445 million decision could drop to around $200–300 million. The $78.5 million might settle closer to $50–70 million.

Investors are far more focused on bigger drivers like memory chip prices, AI data center demand, and Samsung’s foundry business. If those trends stay strong, litigation won’t sink the ship.

Traders may even view short-term dips caused by legal news as buying opportunities. Some may sell short-dated options during volatility and hold long-term positions tied to the semiconductor cycle.

An Appeal Is Almost Certain

Expect Samsung to appeal both verdicts—history shows it challenges nearly 90% of its losses in this district. Appeals can take one to two years, and the Federal Circuit often trims damages based on how royalty rates were calculated.

Even though the jury found willful infringement in the Collision case, that doesn’t guarantee extra penalties. Judges often reduce the multiplier below the three-times maximum.

Industry-Wide Risk

Samsung isn’t alone. These trials set a precedent for any company using 4G, 5G, or media tracking technologies. Larger verdicts raise the stakes, pushing manufacturers to preemptively license patents or slow down new features while they clear legal risks.

The Bottom Line for Investors

At the end of the day, these judgments are costly but manageable. They represent friction—not a fundamental threat to Samsung’s future.

Patent disputes are a cost of doing business when you operate at global scale. What truly matters is whether those costs cripple innovation or limit growth. Right now, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

The likely outcome? Lower payouts than the headlines suggest—and plenty of investor interest in the dips.

The cases are Collision Communications Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00587, and Anonymous Media Research Holdings LLC v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00439, both in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.