Koyo Licensing v. Samsung: S-Pen Patent Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in 157 Days
Koyo Licensing LLC filed a patent infringement action against Samsung Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two patents against a broad range of S-Pen-compatible Galaxy devices. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after just 157 days, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees.
S-Pen patent claims against Samsung resolved in under six months
Koyo Licensing LLC filed this infringement action on 12 December 2025 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting US10969930B2 and US9116598B1 against a wide portfolio of Samsung Galaxy devices — including the Note, S Ultra, Tab, Tab FE, Tab S, and Z Fold series — specifically those compatible with Samsung's S-Pen stylus.
The recorded Basis of Termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that the court accepted and acknowledged Plaintiff's Corrected Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, under which all of Plaintiff's claims against Samsung were dismissed with prejudice, with each party directed to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. All pending requests for relief were denied as moot.
The case closed on 18 May 2026 — approximately five months after filing — before any substantive merits rulings appear in the public record. What, if anything, was agreed between the parties prior to the dismissal notice is not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 157 days
157 days — from filing to voluntary dismissal with prejudice
US10969930B2 & US9116598B1 — stylus and touch-interface UI patents
Any R&D or product team developing stylus-compatible touchscreen devices — including active digitizers, S-Pen-style inputs, or pressure-sensitive stylus interfaces for smartphones, tablets, or hybrid devices — should treat these two Koyo patents as live risk. The patents were never narrowed by a claim construction order or invalidated, and the dismissal with prejudice in this case does not extinguish enforcement risk against third parties.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order is procedural rather than substantive: it accepts the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal notice and enters the case as dismissed with prejudice, with no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The directive that parties bear their own costs and that all pending relief is denied as moot confirms the case ended without any adjudication on the merits of either party's position.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the resolution means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal filed by plaintiff — claims end with prejudice
The plaintiff filed a Corrected Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, and the court accepted it, closing the case. The dismissal is recorded on the docket as 'with prejudice,' meaning Koyo Licensing cannot re-file the same claims against Samsung on the same patents in federal court. No merits ruling was issued; the court made no finding on infringement or validity.
Dismissed with prejudiceKoyo Licensing relinquishes its infringement claims permanently
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Koyo Licensing cannot revive the dismissed claims against Samsung under US10969930B2 or US9116598B1. The underlying patents remain in force unless separately invalidated, but their enforceability against Samsung in this action is extinguished. The specific terms, if any, that preceded this dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
Claims permanently extinguished vs SamsungSamsung exits without a merits ruling — and bears its own costs
Samsung Electronics is released from the asserted infringement claims without any court finding on liability. The court's order that each party bears its own costs and attorneys' fees means Samsung received no cost recovery. The absence of a merits ruling leaves the patents' validity and scope unresolved. Whether any business arrangement underlies the dismissal is not disclosed in the available record.
No liability finding; own costsTwo S-Pen patents survive — enforcement risk remains for other S-Pen licensees
Because dismissal was entered without any invalidity or non-infringement ruling, US10969930B2 and US9116598B1 remain live and enforceable. Manufacturers of stylus-compatible touchscreen devices — beyond Samsung — should treat these patents as active enforcement risks. The rapid resolution, before claim construction or discovery, suggests competitors cannot rely on this docket for any substantive insight into patent scope or validity.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Koyo Licensing LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bryan N DeMatteo | Attorney | Counsel for Koyo Licensing LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Kurt Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for Koyo Licensing LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | DeMatteo Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Koyo Licensing LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Truelove Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Koyo Licensing LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for 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 Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the stylus and touch-interface patent space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from the Koyo v. Samsung dispute — covering stylus-UI filing trends, Samsung's active-digitizer IP posture, and white-space opportunities near the asserted patents.
Koyo Licensing's stylus-UI patent holdings beyond this suit
Koyo Licensing asserted two patents here, but licensing entities often hold related family members, continuations, or divisionals. Monitoring Koyo's full US and PCT portfolio — particularly continuations of App. Nos. 16/824,607 and 13/732,407 — can reveal whether additional claims are pending that could target next-generation stylus implementations. Early visibility reduces reactive litigation risk.
NPE portfolio watchActive-digitizer and S-Pen-style filing trends are accelerating
Stylus and active-digitizer patent filings have grown alongside the proliferation of foldable and large-format tablet devices. Understanding which assignees are filing aggressively in pressure-sensitive stylus input, Bluetooth-enabled pen protocols, and hover-detection technology can reveal both competitive threats and potential licensing targets before litigation materialises.
Stylus IP filing trendsSamsung's own active-digitizer and stylus patent portfolio
Samsung Electronics is itself a major filer in stylus, digitizer, and pen-input technologies. Analysing Samsung's offensive and defensive IP in this space — including patents covering S-Pen protocols, pressure detection, and hover sensing — can inform both design-around strategies and cross-licensing negotiations for companies developing competing stylus-enabled devices.
Samsung stylus IP depthAdjacent R&D opportunities near the Koyo touch-UI patents
The claims asserted by Koyo focus on touch-interface and stylus-compatible UI interactions. Adjacent white-space areas — including haptic feedback integration with stylus input, AI-driven handwriting recognition, and multi-modal stylus-plus-touch gesture systems — may represent lower-encumbrance filing opportunities for companies innovating beyond the claim scope of US10969930B2 and US9116598B1.
Stylus UI white spaceSimilar stylus and touch-UI patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable NPE patent assertions targeting stylus-compatible and touchscreen-interface technology in the Eastern District of Texas, including cases before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the S-Pen and stylus-interface IP landscape
A swift voluntary dismissal with prejudice in E.D. Tex., before any merits ruling, leaves two stylus-UI patents fully armed for future enforcement.
Two stylus-UI patents remain active enforcement tools after dismissal
US10969930B2 and US9116598B1 were never tested on validity or infringement. Any company shipping S-Pen-compatible or stylus-enabled devices should treat these patents as live risk vectors and consider proactive FTO analysis now, before litigation reaches their doorstep.
E.D. Tex. remains the preferred venue for NPE patent assertions against consumer electronics
Judge Gilstrap's docket in the Eastern District of Texas continues to attract high-volume NPE filings targeting global device manufacturers. In-house teams at consumer electronics companies should maintain active monitoring of new filings in this district, particularly against product categories that overlap with their own portfolios.
Koyo v Samsung — key questions answered
Koyo Licensing asserted two patents: US10969930B2 (App. No. 16/824,607) and US9116598B1 (App. No. 13/732,407). Both relate to touch-interface and stylus-compatible UI technology and were asserted against a wide range of Samsung Galaxy devices equipped with S-Pen functionality.
The recorded Basis of Termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that the court accepted the plaintiff's Corrected Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, under which all of Koyo's claims were dismissed with prejudice. Each party was directed to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The specific terms, if any, that preceded the notice are not disclosed in the available record.
The accused products included the Galaxy Note series (Note 8–Note 20), Galaxy S Ultra series (S21–S25 Ultra), Galaxy Tab Active series, Galaxy Tab FE series, Galaxy Tab S series (Tab S4 through S11 and variants), Galaxy Z Fold series (Z Fold 2–Z Fold 6), and Samsung smartphones and tablets generally compatible with the S-Pen stylus.
No. A voluntary dismissal with prejudice ends Koyo's specific claims against Samsung in this proceeding but does not constitute any finding on validity or infringement. US10969930B2 and US9116598B1 remain in force and are enforceable against other parties unless separately challenged through IPR or district court litigation.
Koyo Licensing was represented by Bryan N DeMatteo of DeMatteo Law LLC and Justin Kurt Truelove of Truelove Law Firm. Samsung Electronics was represented by Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
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.