SiOnyx v. Samsung: Image Sensor Patent Case Settles

Updated on Nov. 28, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

SiOnyx, LLC and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. have reached a confidential settlement in their image sensor patent infringement dispute, ending litigation that targeted Samsung’s flagship Galaxy smartphones and ISOCELL sensor technology. The Texas Eastern District Court granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss on June 5, 2025, concluding Case No. 2:24-cv-00291 after 401 days of litigation.

The case centered on five SiOnyx patents covering digital imaging sensor technology, with allegations that Samsung’s ISOCELL image sensors—deployed in devices including the Galaxy S23 Ultra and Galaxy Z Flip5—infringed SiOnyx’s intellectual property. The settlement, reached before any claim construction or substantive rulings, reflects a broader trend of early resolution in semiconductor IP disputes.

For patent attorneys and IP professionals tracking Eastern District of Texas patent cases, this SiOnyx Samsung patent case analysis offers insights into settlement dynamics and strategic considerations when asserting patents against major consumer electronics manufacturers.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

SiOnyx, LLC is a Massachusetts-based company specializing in silicon photonics and advanced image sensor technology, holding a portfolio of patents in the imaging sensor space.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., along with subsidiaries Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., is among the world’s largest manufacturers of image sensors. Samsung’s ISOCELL brand competes directly with Sony in mobile imaging.

The Patents at Issue

SiOnyx asserted five U.S. patents covering digital imaging sensor technology:

• US10224359B2 — Digital imaging sensor technology
• US9905599B2 — Semiconductor device structures for light detection
• US11721714B2 — Advanced imaging sensor configurations
• US9064764B2 — Photosensitive device architectures
• US11069737B2 — Enhanced light sensitivity mechanisms

Research patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP to explore related imaging sensor innovations.

The Accused Products

SiOnyx alleged patent infringement in Samsung’s digital imaging sensors and mobile devices, specifically the Samsung ISOCELL image sensors, Galaxy S23 Ultra, and Galaxy Z Flip5 smartphones.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

SiOnyx filed its complaint on April 30, 2024, in the Texas Eastern District Court. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Access the case docket via PACER for complete filing history.

The litigation proceeded for 401 days before termination. Settlement occurred before Markman proceedings (claim construction hearings)—a phase that often serves as a pivotal inflection point in patent cases.

💡 Key Insight: Early settlement before claim construction suggests neither party wanted to risk an unfavorable ruling that could dramatically shift case valuation.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

On June 5, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 11):

• ⚖️ SiOnyx’s claims: Dismissed with prejudice
• ⚖️ Samsung’s counterclaims, defenses: Dismissed without prejudice
• ⚖️ All pending motions: Denied as moot

The asymmetric dismissal structure is typical in patent settlements where the accused infringer obtains freedom to operate (FTO) while maintaining defensive options.

Settlement Analysis

While terms remain confidential, the pre-claim construction timing suggests neither party wanted to risk an unfavorable Markman ruling. For SiOnyx, proceeding against a well-resourced defendant carries substantial costs, including potential IPR challenges. For Samsung, early resolution eliminated uncertainty affecting flagship products.

Track litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP to monitor similar semiconductor patent disputes.

Strategic Observations

⚖️ For Patent Holders: This case illustrates the dynamics of asserting patents against major technology companies. Preparing robust claim construction positions early may maximize settlement leverage.

⚖️ For Accused Infringers: Samsung’s early settlement suggests a strategic calculation regarding litigation costs. Review USPTO MPEP guidelines on patent validity considerations.

🔬 For R&D Teams: Engineering teams developing imaging technologies may benefit from conducting FTO analyses. Analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP for prior art research.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The mobile image sensor market remains intensely competitive. SiOnyx’s assertion against Samsung signals active portfolio enforcement—a trend worth monitoring for image sensor patent infringement 2025 developments.

📊 Industry Trend: Early settlement increasingly prevails in semiconductor IP disputes, with substantial litigation costs and IPR vulnerabilities often driving negotiated outcomes.

Explore similar cases on Patsnap Eureka IP for competitive intelligence.

Key Takeaways

⚖️ For Patent Attorneys:

• Early EDTX settlement before Markman remains common in technology cases
• Asymmetric dismissal terms provide structures for negotiated resolutions

📊 For IP Professionals:

• Image sensor portfolios remain valuable assertion assets
• Monitor SiOnyx’s portfolio for potential assertions against other manufacturers

🔬 For R&D Leaders:

• Consider FTO analysis before product development commitments

Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP for comprehensive IP intelligence.

FAQ

What patents were involved in SiOnyx v. Samsung? Five U.S. patents: US10224359B2, US9905599B2, US11721714B2, US9064764B2, and US11069737B2, covering digital imaging sensor technologies.

How was the case resolved? The parties settled and filed a joint motion to dismiss, granted June 5, 2025. Settlement terms were not publicly disclosed.

What products were accused of infringement? Samsung ISOCELL image sensors and smartphones including the Galaxy S23 Ultra and Galaxy Z Flip5.

SEO Schema: Article, LegalService, FAQPage

Disclaimer: This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information presented is based on publicly available case data and should not be relied upon for legal decision-making. Readers should consult qualified legal counsel for advice on specific patent matters. Settlement terms referenced herein were not publicly disclosed; analysis of potential factors is speculative.

You may also find these articles useful:
Federal Circuit Affirms Google Win: Touchstream Streaming Patent Invalidated