Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
E.D. Tex.

Kiwi Intellectual assets Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:25-cv-00811 (E.D. Tex. July 13, 2026)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:25-cv-00811, Dkt. No. 51
Decided
July 13, 2026
Judge
Rodney Gilstrap, J. — Marshall
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Granting 24 Motion to Dismiss a certain subset of Plaintiff's patent claims
Length
2 pages

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

KIWI INTELLECTUAL ASSETS §

CORP., §

§ Plaintiff, § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00811-JRG v. § § SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. § and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS § AMERICA, INC., §

§ Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) a certain subset of Plaintiff’s patent claims. (Dkt. No. 24.) Samsung contends that KIWI’s pre-suit indirect and willful infringement claims should be dismissed, while KIWI represents that “it is not currently maintaining” these claims. (Dkt. No. 26 at 1.)

Having considered the Motion, the subsequent briefing, and the positions of the parties, the Court finds that the Motion should be and hereby is GRANTED. Noting the expressed positions of the parties, the Court agrees with Samsung that KIWI should not have opposed Samsung’s Motion, ostensibly to preserve some right to develop pre-suit claims based on hypothetical discovery. (See Dkt. No. 24 at 2 (Samsung arguing that KIWI “apparently prefers to leave unsupported allegations in the Complaint on the theory that those allegations may benefit Kiwi”).) See Innova Hosp. San Antonio, Ltd. P’ship v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Georgia, Inc., 892 F.3d 719, 730 (5th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, KIWI’s pre-suit indirect infringement and pre-suit willful infringement claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

2.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13th day of July, 2026.

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Kiwi Intellectual assets Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, No. 2:25-cv-00811 (E.D. Tex. July 13, 2026).

govinfo ID
USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00811-0
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/USCOURTS-txed-2_25-cv-00811-0

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.