Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Koninklijke KPN N.V.

Summary

Samsung Electronics is suing Koninklijke KPN and TNO over patent infringement. The case involves a patent dispute, though the specific patent number and technology at issue are not identified in the court filings. Both parties are major players in telecommunications and research, suggesting the dispute centers on a communications or networking technology.

Summary generated by AI from public docket data. Verify against the original filing before relying on it.

Coverage vs reality meter

Cause

35:1 Patent Infringement

Entities in this case

Parties

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (plaintiff) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (plaintiff) Nederlandse Organisatie voor Toegepast Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek TNO (defendant) Koninklijke KPN N.V. (defendant)

Docket entries

1. #452025-07-30

   Patent/Trademark Report to Commissioner of Patents

2. #442025-07-30

   Order Dismissing Case AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

3. 2025-04-08

   Add Attorneys - PHV only

4. 2025-03-13

   -District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 05 Attorneys Credit Card Payment

5. 2025-03-13

   Add Attorneys - PHV only

6. 2025-03-13

   SO ORDERED

7. 2025-03-06

   SO ORDERED

8. 2025-03-06

   -District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 03 Attorneys Credit Card Payment

9. 2025-01-09

   SO ORDERED

10. 2025-01-09

    Case Reassigned to Judge Colm F. Connolly. Please include the initials of the Judge (CFC) after the case number on all documents filed. (nms)

11. 2025-01-09

    SO ORDERED, re 7 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Sean Pak, Jared W. Newton, and Kevin Hardy filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 1/9/2025. (mws)

12. 2025-01-09

    Case Assigned/Reassigned

13. 2025-01-08

    Case Assigned/Reassigned

14. 2025-01-08

    Case Assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews. Please include the initials of the Judge (RGA) after the case number on all documents filed. (rjb)

15. 2025-01-03

    -District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee - 03 Attorneys Credit Card Payment

16. 2025-01-02

    ORAL ORDER. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file its Complaint under seal (D.I. 1 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion is GRANTED insofar as it seeks to file the Complaint under seal. It is DENIED insofar as it seeks permission to file Exhibit A as the redacted public version of the Complaint. The only thing in paragraph 13 of the Complaint for which good cause exists for keeping it from the public is the amount of the payment (i.e., two words). No good cause exists to maintain under seal anything in paragraphs 14, 15, 20, 22, 24, 27, 50, 56, 62, 68, 74, 80, 86, and 92 of the Complaint. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file no later than January 9, 2025 a redacted version of the Complaint consistent with this ORAL ORDER. (Setting Deadlines: Notice of Compliance deadline set for 1/9/2025.) Ordered by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 1/2/2025. (kmd)

17. 2025-01-02

    Oral Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines

18. 2025-01-02

    Remark

19. 2025-01-02

    Remark: Case submitted for routine judicial assignment. (jfm)

20. 2025-01-01

    Remark: Exit electronic copies to Duty Judge, CFC (jfm)

Docket history from CourtListener/RECAP — most recent first.