Koyo Licensing LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Infringement action filed 12 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 18 May 2026, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US10969930B2US9116598B1
- Case no.
- 2:25-cv-01212
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 12 Dec 2025 – 18 May 2026
- Duration
- 157 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Galaxy Note Series (Note 8–Note 10 and Note 20 series) · Galaxy S Ultra series (S21–S25 Ultra) · Galaxy Tab Active Series (Tab Active Pro, Tab Active 3, Tab Active 4 Pro, and Tab Active 5) · Galaxy Tab FE Series (Tab S7 FE–Tab S11 FE) · Galaxy Tab S Series (Tab S4, S5e, and S6–S11 and their Plus and Ultra variants) · Galaxy Z Fold Series (Z Fold 2– Z Fold 6) · Samsung Smart phones and tablets that are S-Pen compatible
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
User interface for use in computing device with sensitive display
A user interface at a computing device with a sensitive display is disclosed. A dialog is popped up, on the sensitive display, at a position that is predetermined pixels away from the position of hover or a tap of an object detected by the sensitive display. A menu for operation of a computer program is displayed responsive to such hover being detected above a predetermined location within a screen of the computer program on the sensitive display. An assistance object for assisting a tappable object to be tapped is displayed responsive to such hover being detected above the tappable object on the sensitive display. A tappable object is emphasized responsive to such hover being detected above the tappable object on the sensitive display.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 6 Apr 2021
- Earliest priority
- 10 Jan 2012
- Est. expiry
- 1 Jan 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- YODEN, KOJI
- Classification
- G06F3/0488G06F3/0481G06F3/0482G06F3/0484
- Examiner
- SILVERMAN, SETH A
User interface for use in computing device with sensitive display
A user interface at a computing device with a sensitive display is disclosed. A dialog is popped up, on the sensitive display, at a position that is predetermined pixels away from the position of hover or a tap of an object detected by the sensitive display. A menu for operation of a computer program is displayed responsive to such hover being detected above a predetermined location within a screen of the computer program on the sensitive display. An assistance object for assisting a tappable object to be tapped is displayed responsive to such hover being detected above the tappable object on the sensitive display. A tappable object is emphasized responsive to such hover being detected above the tappable object on the sensitive display.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 25 Aug 2015
- Earliest priority
- 10 Jan 2012
- Est. expiry
- 10 Jul 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- YODEN, KOJI
- Classification
- G06F3/0488G06F3/0481
- Examiner
- NG, AMY
Parties of record
Koyo Licensing LLC
- Core tech
- G06F3/0488G06F3/0481G06F3/0482G06F3/0484
- Counsel
- Bryan N DeMatteo · Justin Kurt Truelove
- Firm
- DeMatteo Law LLC, Truelove Law Firm
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Melissa Richards Smith
- Firm
- Gillam & Smith LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Bryan N DeMatteo | Koyo Licensing LLC | Plaintiff |
| Justin Kurt Truelove | Koyo Licensing LLC | Plaintiff |
| Melissa Richards Smith | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Corrected Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (Dkt. No. 21). In the Notice, Plaintiff states that all Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants have been dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 1). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The parties are to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief asserted by the parties in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case.”
Case 2:25-cv-01212 · E.D. Tex. · closed 18 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:25-cv-01212?
2:25-cv-01212 is a patent infringement action brought by Koyo Licensing LLC against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., filed on 12 Dec 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 18 May 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 2:25-cv-01212?
US10969930B2 (“User interface for use in computing device with sensitive display”), assigned to KOYO LICENSING LLC, currently active; US9116598B1 (“User interface for use in computing device with sensitive display”), assigned to KOYO LICENSING LLC, currently active. The record also lists Galaxy Note Series (Note 8–Note 10 and Note 20 series), Galaxy S Ultra series (S21–S25 Ultra), Galaxy Tab Active Series (Tab Active Pro, Tab Active 3, Tab Active 4 Pro, and Tab Active 5), Galaxy Tab FE Series (Tab S7 FE–Tab S11 FE), Galaxy Tab S Series (Tab S4, S5e, and S6–S11 and their Plus and Ultra variants), Galaxy Z Fold Series (Z Fold 2– Z Fold 6) and Samsung Smart phones and tablets that are S-Pen compatible.
How was case 2:25-cv-01212 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Corrected Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (Dkt. No. 21). In the Notice, Plaintiff states that all Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants have been dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 1). Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The parties are to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief asserted by the parties in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is direc
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:25-cv-01212 take?
157 calendar days, from filing on 12 Dec 2025 to closure on 18 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:25-cv-01212?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Bryan N DeMatteo and Justin Kurt Truelove are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Koyo Licensing. Melissa Richards Smith appears for defendant Samsung Electronics.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:25-cv-01212 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.