Cellect v. Samsung: Federal Circuit Affirms in Endoscopic Imaging Patent Appeal
Cellect, LLC appealed a patentability ruling concerning US9667896B2, covering reduced-area imaging devices incorporated in endoscopes, against Samsung Electronics. A three-judge Federal Circuit panel affirmed the decision below in a per curiam Rule 36 judgment after 590 days of appellate proceedings.
Federal Circuit per curiam affirmance in Cellect's endoscopic imaging challenge
Cellect, LLC — holder of US9667896B2 directed to a reduced-area imaging device incorporated within endoscopic devices — brought an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 22-1101), challenging a patentability determination in an invalidity/cancellation action against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The appeal was filed on 1 November 2021 and closed on 14 June 2023.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Appeal Dismissed.' The docket order states: 'THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED: PER CURIAM (LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges). AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.' These two characterisations are reported as-is from the available record; the reader should reconcile them. The specific terms and any further procedural context are not disclosed in the available record.
The Federal Circuit's invocation of Rule 36 — which permits a judgment of affirmance without a written opinion when the court determines that a reasoned opinion would have no precedential value — means no publicly available appellate reasoning accompanies this disposition. The absence of a written opinion limits the ability of third parties to assess the precise grounds on which the patentability challenge was rejected.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 590 days
590 days from filing to Federal Circuit disposition — consistent with typical inter partes review appeal timelines
US9667896B2 — reduced-area imaging device for endoscopic applications
Any company developing or commercialising reduced-area imaging devices for endoscopic or minimally invasive medical applications should assess whether US9667896B2 or related Cellect patents affect their freedom to operate. The confirmed invalidity finding from the underlying proceeding — affirmed by the Federal Circuit — reduces but does not eliminate risk, particularly if Cellect holds related family members or continuation patents covering adjacent configurations.
Official order — verbatim text
The per curiam order affirms the decision below under Federal Circuit Rule 36, signalling that the panel unanimously found no reversible error but that a written opinion would add no precedential value. This is the most constrained form of Federal Circuit affirmance: the underlying patentability determination stands, but no appellate reasoning is published for Cellect or Samsung to rely upon in future proceedings.
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Affirmance under Fed. Cir. R. 36 — no written opinion issued
A Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit found no reversible error in the decision below but determined that a written opinion would carry no precedential value. The lower tribunal's patentability determination stands in full. No appellate reasoning is published, which limits downstream use of this ruling as persuasive authority in related proceedings.
No reversible error foundCellect's patent challenge rejected at appellate level
For Cellect, the affirmance confirms that the patentability determination below — adverse to its patent's validity — survives appellate scrutiny. US9667896B2 remains subject to the underlying invalidity or cancellation finding. Cellect's appellate options at the Federal Circuit are exhausted; further review would require a petition to the Supreme Court.
Patent validity challenge failedSamsung's patentability position confirmed on appeal
Samsung Electronics and Samsung Electronics America successfully defended the outcome below. The Federal Circuit's affirmance means the invalidity or cancellation determination stands, reducing the enforcement risk from US9667896B2 for Samsung's endoscopic and imaging product lines. No further appellate exposure at this level remains.
Validity challenge upheldRule 36 affirmance limits precedential weight for endoscopic imaging IP
Because no written opinion accompanies this affirmance, the ruling does not create citable precedent on patentability standards for reduced-area imaging technology in endoscopic devices. Competitors and practitioners cannot rely on this outcome as persuasive authority in related IPR or district court proceedings, but the cancellation of the asserted claim itself has direct consequences for the enforceability of this patent.
Low precedential valueFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cellect, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Caplan | Attorney | Counsel for Cellect, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cellect, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott Anthony McKeown | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ropes & Gray, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the endoscopic imaging patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Cellect v. Samsung — covering imaging miniaturisation, endoscopic device IP, and competitive filing activity.
Cellect's patent activity in miniaturised imaging beyond US9667896B2
With the '896 patent subject to a confirmed invalidity finding, understanding the breadth of Cellect's remaining filing activity in endoscopic and reduced-area imaging is critical for competitors and licensees. Mapping Cellect's continuation filings, related family members, and any pending applications reveals residual enforceability risk in adjacent claim territory.
Portfolio mapping signalFiling trends in compact imaging sensors for endoscopic devices
The reduced-area imaging space for endoscopy is an active filing domain driven by demand for higher-resolution, smaller-footprint sensors in minimally invasive procedures. Tracking recent PCT and US filings in CCD and CMOS miniaturisation for endoscopic instruments identifies where the next enforcement or licensing flashpoints are likely to emerge.
Sector filing trendSamsung's patent position in medical imaging and endoscopic technology
Samsung's successful appellate defence in this case is consistent with a broader IP posture in imaging technology. Reviewing Samsung Electronics' patent filings in miniaturised medical imaging — particularly any cross-over between consumer imaging semiconductor IP and medical device applications — surfaces potential defensive and offensive positions in this domain.
Samsung imaging IPAdjacent claim territory in endoscopic imaging post-invalidation
The invalidation of US9667896B2 may open design-around space in reduced-area imaging for endoscopes. Identifying claim configurations in adjacent areas — such as signal processing for miniaturised endoscopic sensors, illumination integration, or multi-modal imaging assemblies — represents potential white space for R&D teams seeking freedom to operate and new filing opportunities.
Innovation white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit patent appeals in medical imaging and endoscopy
Explore Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmances and invalidity/cancellation appeals in miniaturised medical imaging and endoscopic device patents — the same technology domain and court level as this case.
What this case signals for the endoscopic imaging IP landscape
A Rule 36 Federal Circuit affirmance in an endoscopic imaging patentability appeal carries specific implications for IP strategy in medical device and imaging sectors.
Rule 36 outcomes create no citable precedent — plan accordingly
When the Federal Circuit disposes of a patent appeal under Rule 36, the underlying cancellation stands but the reasoning is unexplained. Parties in related IPR proceedings or district court litigation cannot cite this outcome as persuasive authority. IP teams should not treat this affirmance as establishing any new legal standard for endoscopic imaging patents.
US9667896B2 enforceability is materially affected by this outcome
The affirmance of the patentability determination below means US9667896B2 faces a confirmed validity challenge. Any freedom-to-operate analysis or licensing strategy built around this patent in reduced-area endoscopic imaging should be revisited in light of this appellate outcome and the underlying cancellation proceeding.
Cellect v Samsung — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a per curiam affirmance under Fed. Cir. R. 36 in Case No. 22-1101, affirming the patentability determination below. The recorded basis of termination is 'Appeal Dismissed.' No written opinion accompanied the judgment. Judges Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna comprised the panel.
US9667896B2 (application number US14/941040) was the patent at issue. It covers a reduced-area imaging device incorporated within endoscopic devices. The appeal concerned a patentability/invalidity or cancellation action targeting that patent.
A Rule 36 affirmance confirms the lower tribunal's decision without a written opinion. The Federal Circuit found no reversible error but determined that a reasoned opinion would have no precedential value. The underlying patentability determination — adverse to the patent — stands, but no citable appellate reasoning is published.
No. Rule 36 judgments are non-precedential. The affirmance in Case No. 22-1101 cannot be cited as persuasive authority on patentability standards for endoscopic imaging technology in future proceedings. Its direct legal effect is confined to the disposition of US9667896B2 in this specific proceeding.
The affirmance of the invalidity/cancellation determination below reduces enforcement risk from US9667896B2 for companies working in endoscopic reduced-area imaging. However, Cellect may hold related family patents or continuations that are not subject to the same invalidity finding. A full FTO analysis covering the Cellect portfolio is advisable before relying on this outcome as a complete clearance.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.