Lynk Labs v. Samsung: AC LED Patent Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Lynk Labs, Inc. voluntarily dismissed its Federal Circuit appeal against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. over US10506674B2, covering AC LED drive methods and apparatus. The appeal was dismissed unopposed in 55 days, with each side bearing its own costs. A related appeal, No. 2023-1934, remains active.
Federal Circuit appeal over AC LED patent ends after 55 days
Lynk Labs, Inc., holder of US10506674B2 directed to AC light emitting diode drive methods and apparatus, brought Appeal No. 2023-1897 before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The appeal, filed on 17 May 2023, arose from an invalidity/cancellation action concerning the patentability of the asserted patent. The underlying verdict cause is recorded as patentability.
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that Lynk Labs filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss Appeal No. 2023-1897 pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), which was granted. The court ordered each side to bear its own costs as to this appeal. The specific terms, if any, underlying the decision to dismiss are not disclosed in the available record.
The appeal closed on 11 July 2023 — just 55 days after filing — without any merits adjudication. The order expressly notes that a related appeal, No. 2023-1934, remains pending, with Lynk Labs's opening brief due within 60 days of the dismissal order. What drove the decision to dismiss this particular appeal while the related proceeding continues is not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 55 days
Case resolved in 55 days — well below the median Federal Circuit appeal duration.
US10506674B2 — AC light emitting diode drive methods and apparatus
Any company designing, manufacturing, or selling products that drive LEDs from AC sources — including luminaire makers, LED module suppliers, and consumer electronics brands — should assess their exposure to US10506674B2. The patent's patentability is actively contested at the Federal Circuit, but it has not been invalidated. Operating without an FTO review in this space carries risk, particularly given Lynk Labs's demonstrated willingness to pursue enforcement through inter partes proceedings and Federal Circuit appeals.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit's order granted Lynk Labs's unopposed Rule 42(b) motion, dismissing Appeal No. 2023-1897 without reaching the merits of the patentability dispute. The order simultaneously preserves the related Appeal No. 2023-1934, setting a briefing schedule, which confirms that the underlying AC LED patent validity contest between these parties continues at the appellate level.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 42(b) dismissal means for both parties
Rule 42(b) voluntary dismissal: no merits ruling issued
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) permits an appellant to voluntarily dismiss an appeal. Because the motion was unopposed and granted, the Federal Circuit issued no ruling on the merits of the patentability dispute. The underlying invalidity or cancellation determination that was the subject of this appeal therefore stands undisturbed by this order.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal, without specifying whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. The docket order does not expressly state either. Accordingly, this page does not assert either characterisation. Practitioners should consult the full docket and any accompanying stipulation to determine preclusive effect.
Prejudice status undisclosedSamsung: this appeal ends without an adverse ruling
Samsung Electronics faces no adverse appellate ruling from this dismissal. The unopposed nature of the motion suggests Samsung did not contest the withdrawal. Each side bears its own costs as to Appeal No. 2023-1897, meaning Samsung incurs no cost award liability from this proceeding.
No adverse ruling for SamsungRelated appeal No. 2023-1934 remains active
The dismissal order expressly preserves the related Federal Circuit appeal, No. 2023-1934, and sets Lynk Labs's opening brief due within 60 days. The AC LED patent dispute between these parties is therefore not fully resolved. Stakeholders monitoring the enforceability of US10506674B2 should track the outcome of that proceeding.
Appeal No. 2023-1934 pendingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | LYNK LABS, INC. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Carmichael | Attorney | Counsel for LYNK LABS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Minghui Yang | Attorney | Counsel for LYNK LABS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen McBride | Attorney | Counsel for LYNK LABS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen Terry Schreiner | Attorney | Counsel for LYNK LABS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Carmichael IP PLLC | Law Firm | Representing LYNK LABS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Palys | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Consilvio | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Naveen Modi | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Paul Hastings, 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 AC LED and solid-state lighting space
Forward-looking patent intelligence on AC LED drive technology, drawn from the Lynk Labs v. Samsung Federal Circuit proceedings and the broader solid-state lighting IP landscape.
Lynk Labs's AC LED patent filing activity
Lynk Labs has pursued patent protection in AC LED drive technology, with US10506674B2 representing one asset in what may be a broader portfolio in this domain. Tracking Lynk Labs's filing activity — including continuations and related applications — can reveal the scope of its assertion posture and identify technology areas where enforcement risk is expanding.
Lynk Labs IP portfolioPatent filing trends in AC LED drive architecture
AC LED drive methods — enabling LEDs to operate directly from alternating current — represent a distinct architectural approach within solid-state lighting. Monitoring patent filing trends in this space can surface emerging competitive technologies, identify where innovation is accelerating, and flag potential design-around opportunities relative to the claims at issue in Lynk Labs v. Samsung.
AC LED filing trendsSamsung's patent position in LED drive technology
Samsung Electronics is a significant patent filer across LED components and display technologies. Analysing Samsung's own patent portfolio in AC and DC LED drive architectures — including any defensive filings or cross-licensing positions — can inform assessments of competitive freedom to operate and the likely dynamics of ongoing proceedings such as Appeal No. 2023-1934.
Samsung LED IPAdjacent R&D opportunities near US10506674B2
The claims of US10506674B2 focus on AC LED drive methods and apparatus. White space analysis around this patent — examining claim scope, cited prior art, and adjacent filed technology — may reveal design-around paths or unclaimed innovations in AC-driven solid-state lighting that competitors and new entrants could develop without infringing the asserted claims.
AC LED white spaceSimilar AC LED patent appeals at the Federal Circuit
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving AC LED and solid-state lighting patents, including related Lynk Labs proceedings and comparable patentability challenges.
What this case signals for the AC LED patent IP landscape
A swift voluntary dismissal with costs split and a live related appeal suggests the AC LED patentability battle between Lynk Labs and Samsung is far from over.
Monitor Appeal No. 2023-1934 for the substantive AC LED ruling
This dismissal resolves only one of at least two Federal Circuit appeals involving Lynk Labs and Samsung over AC LED technology. The related appeal, No. 2023-1934, remains open. Any merits ruling there will directly affect the enforceability of Lynk Labs's AC LED portfolio against Samsung and the broader lighting sector.
No merits ruling means the patentability question stays open
Because Appeal No. 2023-1897 was dismissed without a merits adjudication, there is no Federal Circuit guidance on the validity of US10506674B2 from this proceeding. Companies operating in AC LED drive technology should not treat this dismissal as a clearance signal — the patent's status remains contested.
LYNK v Samsung — key questions answered
Lynk Labs, Inc. voluntarily dismissed Appeal No. 2023-1897 at the Federal Circuit under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The motion was unopposed and granted on 11 July 2023, 55 days after filing. No merits ruling was issued. Each side bears its own costs. A related appeal, No. 2023-1934, remains pending.
The patent at issue is US10506674B2 (application number US16/523388), covering AC light emitting diode and AC LED drive methods and apparatus. The underlying dispute is an invalidity/cancellation action raising patentability of this patent.
No. The dismissal was entered without any merits adjudication. Because no Federal Circuit ruling on patentability was issued, the voluntary dismissal of this appeal does not constitute a finding of validity or invalidity for US10506674B2. The related appeal, No. 2023-1934, continues.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) allows an appellant to move to dismiss its own appeal. When the motion is unopposed and granted, the appeal is terminated without any ruling on the underlying merits. The public record for this case does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
No. The dismissal of Appeal No. 2023-1897 resolved only that specific appeal. The Federal Circuit's order expressly preserves related Appeal No. 2023-1934 and sets a briefing schedule for Lynk Labs's opening brief. The patentability of US10506674B2 and the broader dispute between these parties remains unresolved.
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.