EyesMatch v. Samsung: Eye-Tracking Patent Dispute Ends With Prejudice After 764 Days
EyesMatch, Ltd. filed suit against Samsung Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two eye-tracking patents against a broad range of Galaxy smartphones and laptops. After 764 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice — a resolution that forecloses any future reassertion of these patents against Samsung on these claims.
Eye-Tracking Patent Assertion Against Samsung Ends in Prejudicial Dismissal
EyesMatch, Ltd., a patent assertion entity holding rights in eye-tracking interface technology, filed Case No. 2:23-cv-00363 in the Eastern District of Texas on August 8, 2023, targeting Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Research America, Inc. The complaint alleged infringement of US8982109B2 and US8982110B2 across a wide product range including the Galaxy Book2 and Galaxy Book3 laptop lines, as well as the Galaxy S21 FE 5G, Galaxy S22, and Galaxy S23 smartphones — a portfolio spanning both mobile and computing segments of Samsung’s consumer electronics business.
The case was terminated on September 10, 2025, via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, entering dismissal of all claims and causes of action with prejudice. Dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law, meaning EyesMatch is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Samsung on the same patents in any future action.
The 764-day duration suggests the parties engaged in substantive litigation activity — including likely claim construction proceedings and potentially inter partes review or discovery exchanges — before reaching a resolution. The joint and voluntary nature of the dismissal is consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record is silent on financial terms or licensing arrangements. What remains unknown is whether Samsung obtained a license, a covenant not to sue, or simply a full release — the practical difference being significant for Samsung’s ongoing product lines.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 764 days
764 days — above average for E.D. Tex. NPE patent disputes that settle pre-trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): consensual dismissal with a permanent bar
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires the signed agreement of all parties who have appeared. When entered with prejudice, it operates as a final judgment on the merits. EyesMatch cannot re-file the same claims against Samsung under US8982109B2 or US8982110B2 in any federal court. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical distinction from a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which would have preserved EyesMatch’s right to refile.
Permanent bar on refilingEyesMatch exits with no public win — and no second chance against Samsung
Dismissal with prejudice is the most final outcome short of a trial verdict. EyesMatch permanently surrenders its right to pursue Samsung on these two patents for the accused Galaxy products. Whether EyesMatch received compensation — a lump-sum license, a running royalty, or nothing — is not disclosed in the public record. The outcome is consistent with either a confidential settlement or Samsung successfully negotiating a full release at low or no cost.
No public recovery confirmedSamsung secures a permanent release from these eye-tracking claims
Samsung and Samsung Research America are fully insulated from any future action by EyesMatch under US8982109B2 and US8982110B2 for the accused product lines. The ‘with prejudice’ stipulation — jointly filed — suggests Samsung had sufficient leverage to demand this protection as a condition of any resolution. This outcome strengthens Samsung’s freedom to operate in eye-tracking and gaze-detection interface features across its Galaxy ecosystem without residual litigation risk from EyesMatch on these patents.
Clean FTO position against EyesMatchEye-tracking IP enforcement landscape: the patents remain live against others
The dismissal resolves only the Samsung dispute. US8982109B2 and US8982110B2 remain in force and could be asserted against other device makers integrating eye-tracking or gaze-detection features — particularly those in the smartphone, tablet, and laptop segments. OEMs, OS vendors, and component suppliers building similar functionality should treat this case as a signal that EyesMatch is an active enforcer. The Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for such assertions.
Patents remain enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | EyesMatch, Ltd. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8982109B2 and US8982110B2, eye-tracking technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — global consumer electronics manufacturer, Galaxy device makerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Research America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Josh Blackshear Maness | Attorney | Counsel for EyesMatch, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Kurt Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for EyesMatch, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Douglas Powers | Attorney | Counsel for EyesMatch, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Natasha Marusja Saputo | Attorney | Counsel for EyesMatch, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Nelson | Attorney | Counsel for EyesMatch, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Tensegrity Law Group, LLP (redwood City) | Law Firm | Representing EyesMatch, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Truelove Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing EyesMatch, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chun Xu | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | George Philip Cowden | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jose Carlos Villarreal | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua M. Friedman | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Margaret McInerney Welsh | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil Phillip Sirota | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Pallavi Mathur | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP (New York) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cowden Law Firm, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the parties’ stipulation verbatim, accepting and acknowledging dismissal of all claims and causes of action with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The phrasing ‘resolved’ in the stipulation strongly suggests a confidential agreement was reached, though the public record contains no financial or licensing terms. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it bars EyesMatch from reasserting these specific claims against Samsung, functioning as a final disposition on the merits regardless of whether a trial was held.
US8982109B2 & US8982110B2 — Eye-Tracking Interface Technology
US8982109B2 and US8982110B2 relate to eye-tracking and gaze-detection interface technology — methods and systems by which a device detects, interprets, and responds to a user’s eye movements or gaze direction. The patents were filed under application numbers US13/843001 and US14/253831 respectively, placing their priority period in the early-to-mid 2010s, a period when OEMs were actively integrating attention-aware features into mobile and computing platforms. The ‘B2’ designation indicates the patents issued with amended claims following examination.
Eye-tracking has become a commercially significant interface modality across smartphones, laptops, AR/VR headsets, and accessibility tools. Samsung’s Galaxy S and Galaxy Book lines both incorporate gaze-based features — making these patents strategically relevant to a core product category. For competitors and component suppliers, the breadth of the accused product range in this case — five distinct SKUs across two form factors — suggests the asserted claims may read on platform-level implementations rather than device-specific features, raising the relevance of these patents to any OEM deploying similar interface stacks.
Should your team run an FTO against US8982109B2 and US8982110B2?
Any OEM, ODM, or software platform vendor shipping products with eye-tracking, gaze-scroll, attention detection, or related gaze-based UI features should assess exposure against these two patents. The EyesMatch v. Samsung case demonstrates that these patents have been actively asserted against high-volume consumer devices — not just niche implementations. If your product roadmap includes eye-tracking integration in mobile, laptop, or wearable form factors, an FTO review is commercially justified before launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map the claims of US8982109B2 and US8982110B2 against your specific implementation, surface related family members and continuations, and identify prior art that may support design-around strategies. Eureka also tracks litigation history and IPR proceedings associated with these patent families, giving your team a real-time risk picture rather than a static snapshot.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8982109B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Eye-Tracking and Gaze-Detection Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Browse related patent infringement actions asserting eye-tracking and gaze-detection technology in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable NPE enforcement venues.
What this case signals for the eye-tracking and device interface IP landscape
A 764-day assertion ending in a prejudicial dismissal offers a clear read on EyesMatch’s enforcement strategy and Samsung’s defensive posture in the Eastern District of Texas.
E.D. Tex. remains the venue of choice for NPE eye-tracking assertions
EyesMatch’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with the venue’s historically plaintiff-friendly scheduling and case management norms. Companies shipping devices with gaze-tracking, attention detection, or eye-scroll features should monitor new filings in E.D. Tex. and maintain updated claim charts against patents in this space.
Broad product sweep signals portfolio-level, not feature-level, targeting
EyesMatch accused five distinct Samsung product lines spanning phones and laptops — a sweep suggesting the asserted patents cover a foundational interface mechanism rather than a narrow implementation. This increases the exposure surface for any OEM deploying eye-tracking across multiple device categories and underscores the value of early FTO analysis at the platform level.
EyesMatch v Samsung — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice means all of EyesMatch’s claims against Samsung under US8982109B2 and US8982110B2 are permanently extinguished. EyesMatch cannot refile the same claims against Samsung in any federal court. The dismissal was entered via joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation and accepted by the Eastern District of Texas court on September 10, 2025.
The accused products included the Galaxy Book2 series (including the Galaxy Book2 360), the Galaxy Book3 series (including the Galaxy Book3 360), the Galaxy S21 FE 5G, Galaxy S22, and Galaxy S23 smartphones. The product sweep covered both Samsung’s laptop and mobile phone lines, suggesting the asserted patents target a platform-level eye-tracking or gaze-detection capability.
The public record does not disclose financial terms. The joint stipulation states the case was ‘resolved’ before requesting dismissal with prejudice — language consistent with a confidential settlement. However, it is also possible Samsung extracted a full release without payment. No licensing terms, royalty figures, or payment details are contained in publicly available court filings.
EyesMatch asserted two patents: US8982109B2 (application no. US13/843001) and US8982110B2 (application no. US14/253831). Both patents relate to eye-tracking and gaze-detection interface technology. They remain in force following the dismissal and could potentially be asserted against other defendants.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal bars EyesMatch only from suing Samsung on these patents for the accused products and claims. US8982109B2 and US8982110B2 remain valid, enforceable patents. EyesMatch retains the right to assert them against other OEMs, component suppliers, or software platform vendors whose products implement comparable eye-tracking or gaze-detection functionality.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.