Last updated: July 10, 2026
Executive summary
Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Texas, 2:23-cv-00587) is a federal patent case filed in 2023 against Samsung’s consumer-electronics products. The case caption indicates a trade-name plaintiff (“Collision Communications, Inc.”) and a corporate defendant (“Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.”), but the litigation summary and merits analysis cannot be completed from the provided information because no asserted patents, causes of action, claim charts, prior orders, Markman outcomes, PTAB status, or case disposition details are included.
2:23-cv-00587 litigation summary: what happened in Collision Communications v. Samsung?
The case identification alone (caption and docket number) does not contain the operative allegations needed for a litigation summary. A litigation summary in a patent case requires at minimum: asserted patent numbers, infringement theories (direct, indirect, inducement), accused products, venue-specific procedural posture, and the list of substantive orders (for example, Rule 12 motions, discovery rulings, Markman, summary judgment, or dismissal/settlement).
What is required to summarize infringement claims accurately
Without the complaint and the court’s orders, key litigation facts cannot be stated without risking error:
- Asserted patents and their application family relationships (continuations, divisionals)
- Asserted claims and the constructions adopted in claim construction
- Accused Samsung devices and software features tied to the asserted claims
- The status of each asserted theory (direct vs indirect infringement)
- Whether the case is stayed pending PTAB inter partes review (IPR) or covered business method proceedings
- Whether the case resolved by settlement, dismissal without prejudice, summary judgment, or trial verdict
What patents did Collision Communications assert against Samsung in 2:23-cv-00587?
A patent litigation analysis depends on the asserted patent estate:
- Patent numbers (and publication/application numbers)
- Filing dates, priority dates, and expiration schedules
- Ownership and assignment chain (plaintiff standing, real party in interest)
- Whether any asserted patents are subject to PTAB challenges
- Whether any asserted patents are in litigation estoppel or have been previously construed
The docket identifier alone does not provide those inputs. Without the asserted-patent list, the “how strong is the patent estate for” analysis cannot be produced.
What products and features did Samsung allegedly infringe in Collision Communications v. Samsung (E.D. Texas)?
In E.D. Texas patent cases, product-level infringement allegations are central. A complete summary requires:
- The accused Samsung product categories (handsets, tablets, wearables, smart TVs, network devices, or components)
- Specific models and corresponding sales territories
- Software versions, radio/wireless standards, messaging features, or UI elements mapped to the claims
- The time window of infringement allegations (pre/post a cutoff date)
The provided case identifier does not contain accused-product detail.
Where does the case stand: motions, Markman, and summary judgment in 2:23-cv-00587?
A useful litigation timeline requires the docket’s order history. A typical high-value timeline includes:
- Motions to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6), venue, personal jurisdiction)
- Claim construction schedule and the Markman order
- Discovery rulings on terms like “public use,” “enablement,” or infringement contentions
- Summary judgment on invalidity, non-infringement, or claim indefiniteness
- Trial scheduling order or case disposition order
No procedural milestones are included in the prompt, so no accurate timeline can be generated.
How do invalidity and design-around arguments affect exposure in Collision Communications v. Samsung?
A credibility-weighted exposure analysis requires:
- Invalidity grounds (anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness under §112, §101 eligibility if raised)
- Claim-by-claim invalidity mapping and expert positions
- Whether PTAB outcomes undermined claim scope
- Whether Samsung proposed non-infringement or alternative claim scope interpretations after Markman
Without the asserted claims, the invalidity content, and the court’s rulings, the analysis would be speculative.
Is there PTAB or related litigation involving the same patents as in 2:23-cv-00587?
Parallel proceedings often control leverage in U.S. patent disputes. A rigorous analysis requires:
- Whether IPR petitions were filed and instituted
- Result outcomes (claims canceled or narrowed)
- Federal Circuit outcomes, if appealed
- Prior district court cases involving the same patents and similar accused technology
None of that information is present.
Did the case settle, get dismissed, or reach a verdict?
A final disposition drives the commercial and legal meaning of the lawsuit. To summarize:
- Settlement agreement terms (if public)
- Dismissal with or without prejudice
- Voluntary dismissal timing relative to Markman/summary judgment
- Any stipulations of non-infringement or license agreements
- Any jury verdict or bench decision
No disposition details are provided.
Key takeaways
- The case identifier (Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 2:23-cv-00587) is insufficient to produce an accurate litigation summary or merits analysis.
- A credible litigation report for a patent case must include the asserted patent list, accused products, docket milestones, and dispositive orders.
- Without those inputs, the patent-exposure, strength, and procedural-posture analysis would not meet a factual, litigation-grade standard.
FAQs
-
What information from the complaint is necessary to summarize a patent case like Collision Communications v. Samsung?
Asserted patent numbers, asserted claims, accused products, and infringement theories.
-
How does Markman claim construction typically change infringement outcomes in E.D. Texas cases?
It narrows the claim scope and often drives summary judgment or settlement leverage.
-
What role do IPR proceedings play in district court patent litigation against device manufacturers?
Instituted IPRs can narrow or cancel claims, changing infringement defenses and damages risk.
-
What events usually indicate settlement in a patent case docket?
Dismissal orders, joint stipulations, consent judgments, or license agreements referenced in court filings.
-
How is “patent strength” assessed for an asserted estate in litigation analysis?
By claim scope, prior art robustness, prosecution history, PTAB/district history, and the court’s constructions.
References
- Court case caption and docket identifier provided in prompt: Collision Communications, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:23-cv-00587 (E.D. Tex.).
