Neonode Smartphone v. Samsung & Apple: Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability
Neonode Smartphone LLC’s touchscreen user interface patent US8812993B2 was found unpatentable at the lower tribunal and that finding was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in a per curiam judgment. The appeal — contested by Samsung Electronics, Samsung Electronics America, and Apple — ran 662 days before closure on 11 June 2024.
Federal Circuit closes the door on Neonode’s core UI patent
Neonode Smartphone LLC filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 19 August 2022, challenging a prior ruling that US8812993B2 — covering touchscreen user interface interactions — was unpatentable. The defendants, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America Inc., and Apple Inc., defended the unpatentability finding and were represented by DLA Piper US LLP. Neonode retained a multi-firm coalition including Susman Godfrey LLP, Sunstein LLP, and Graves & Shaw LLP.
The Federal Circuit issued a per curiam affirmance on 11 June 2024 under Federal Circuit Rule 36, meaning the court found no reversible error in the decision below and adopted the lower tribunal’s reasoning without a separate written opinion. The basis of termination is recorded as ‘Unpatentable,’ confirming the patent’s cancellation and eliminating it as an enforcement asset for Neonode.
The 662-day duration is consistent with a fully-briefed appeal involving multiple respondents and a substantive patentability dispute. A Rule 36 affirmance, while common at the Federal Circuit, signals the panel considered the appeal without finding arguable merit sufficient to warrant a written opinion — a meaningful signal that the underlying invalidity determination was well-grounded. What drove the original unpatentability finding — whether prior art, claim construction, or another basis — remains undisclosed in the public appellate record.
Filing to Unpatentable in 662 days
662 days — above the median for Federal Circuit patent appeals, suggesting substantive briefing complexity
Federal Circuit affirms: what the unpatentability ruling means for both parties
Rule 36 affirmance: the lower decision stands without qualification
A Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance means the appellate panel reviewed the record and found no reversible error — legal or factual — in the tribunal below. No new written opinion is issued; the lower tribunal’s reasoning is adopted in full. This is not a default outcome: the panel actively considered and rejected Neonode’s arguments. The unpatentability finding is now final at this appellate level.
No reversible error foundUS8812993B2 is cancelled — Neonode loses its enforcement vehicle
For Neonode Smartphone LLC, the affirmance is terminal for this patent. US8812993B2 has been adjudicated unpatentable and cannot be asserted in current or future infringement proceedings. Any pending licensing or litigation strategy built around this patent is extinguished. Neonode’s options are limited: en banc rehearing at the Federal Circuit or certiorari to the Supreme Court, both of which face high rejection rates following a Rule 36 disposition.
Patent cancelled — unenforceableSamsung and Apple secure full invalidity — freedom to operate confirmed
Samsung Electronics, Samsung Electronics America, and Apple emerge with a confirmed invalidity finding against a patent that targeted core touchscreen UI functionality. The affirmance eliminates ongoing litigation exposure from this specific patent across all product lines. DLA Piper’s single-firm defence against a three-firm plaintiff coalition suggests high efficiency in sustaining the invalidity arguments through appeal. No remand issues remain outstanding.
Invalidity confirmed on appealUI patent risk recalibrated for the smartphone sector
The cancellation of US8812993B2 removes one assertion vector in the competitive touchscreen UI patent landscape. For product teams and in-house counsel at handset makers, this affirmance suggests that foundational gesture-interaction claims asserted by NPEs remain vulnerable to post-grant challenge and appeal. The Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 disposition raises the bar for any similar UI patent holder seeking appellate reversal of an unpatentability finding.
Strengthened NPE defence precedentFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC | Company | Smartphone UI patent assertion entity — holder of US8812993B2 touchscreen interface patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co./America and Apple Inc. — global smartphone and consumer electronics manufacturersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Apple, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Melton | Attorney | Counsel for NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bryce Barcelo | Attorney | Counsel for NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Greer N. Shaw | Attorney | Counsel for NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kalpana Srinivasan | Attorney | Counsel for NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Philip Graves | Attorney | Counsel for NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert M. Asher | Attorney | Counsel for NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rocco Magni | Attorney | Counsel for NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Graves & Shaw LLP | Law Firm | Representing NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sunstein LLP | Law Firm | Representing NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Susman Godfrey LLP | Law Firm | Representing NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Martin Heintz | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stanley Joseph Panikowski , III | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tiffany Carol Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US 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 ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The per curiam order — issued by Judges Lourie, Prost, and Stark under Federal Circuit Rule 36 — is the appellate court’s most compressed form of affirmance. It confirms the lower tribunal’s unpatentability finding without elaboration, meaning the panel applied the applicable standard of review (typically substantial evidence for factual findings, de novo for legal conclusions) and found the lower decision unimpeachable on all grounds raised. For Neonode, the absence of a written opinion leaves no appellate reasoning to distinguish or leverage in related proceedings.
US8812993B2 — Touchscreen User Interface Gestures
US8812993B2 (application number US13/310755) covers touchscreen user interface technology — specifically gesture-based interaction methods for smartphone devices. The patent’s core claims relate to how users interact with on-screen elements through touch gestures, a foundational area of smartphone UX design. The application number suggests a filing in the 2011–2012 timeframe, placing it squarely in the period when touchscreen UI conventions were being actively established and contested across the industry.
This patent was strategically significant as an assertion vehicle against two of the world’s largest smartphone manufacturers. UI interaction patents of this type, if valid, can affect core product functionality across entire handset portfolios — not peripheral features. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability removes it entirely from the enforcement landscape, but it highlights the ongoing relevance of gesture UI IP for any company operating in the touchscreen device space. Competitors and adjacent players should assess whether related Neonode filings share overlapping claim scope.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8812993B2?
US8812993B2 has been adjudicated unpatentable and affirmed as such by the Federal Circuit — it no longer poses a direct infringement risk. However, R&D and product teams developing touchscreen user interfaces for smartphones, tablets, or any gesture-driven device should investigate whether Neonode holds continuation patents or related filings with overlapping disclosure. A cancelled anchor patent does not eliminate the risk from sibling claims in the same family.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full Neonode patent family tree, identify active continuation and divisional applications sharing the US13/310755 priority chain, and flag any pending claims that could affect current product roadmaps. For in-house counsel managing touchscreen UI product launches, running a family-level FTO now — while the litigation record is fresh — is materially more cost-effective than responding to a new assertion post-launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8812993B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit touchscreen UI patent invalidity appeals
Cases involving touchscreen user interface patent unpatentability findings affirmed at the Federal Circuit, including NPE assertions against smartphone OEMs.
What this case signals for the smartphone UI IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 affirmance has immediate implications for touchscreen UI patent enforcement and NPE litigation strategy.
Rule 36 affirmances signal weak appellate position for patent holders
When the Federal Circuit issues a Rule 36 judgment, it signals the panel found no arguable merit in the appellant’s position. For patent holders appealing unpatentability findings, this outcome forecloses further enforcement. Companies monitoring Neonode’s remaining portfolio should treat this as a strong indicator of claim fragility across related assets.
Multi-defendant coalitions are effective at sustaining invalidity through appeal
Samsung and Apple, represented by a single firm (DLA Piper), successfully defended an unpatentability finding against a three-firm plaintiff coalition. This cost-efficiency model — coordinated defence by major OEMs — consistently performs well at the Federal Circuit on patent validity grounds and is worth replicating in analogous NPE assertion scenarios.
NEONODE v Samsung — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a per curiam Rule 36 affirmance on 11 June 2024, confirming that US8812993B2 — Neonode’s touchscreen user interface patent — is unpatentable. The court found no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s invalidity/cancellation determination. The patent is cancelled and unenforceable.
A Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit panel reviewed the appeal and found it without sufficient merit to warrant a written opinion. The lower tribunal’s decision is adopted in full. For a patent holder appealing an unpatentability finding, a Rule 36 outcome is final at the appellate level — the patent remains cancelled and the reasoning of the lower tribunal stands unchallenged.
US8812993B2 is a US patent held by Neonode Smartphone LLC covering touchscreen user interface gesture interactions, specifically methods by which users interact with on-screen elements on smartphone devices. It was filed under application number US13/310755, consistent with a circa 2011–2012 priority date during the foundational era of smartphone UI development.
No. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the unpatentability finding means US8812993B2 has been cancelled. Neonode cannot assert this patent in new infringement actions. Neonode’s remaining options would be to petition for en banc rehearing or seek certiorari at the Supreme Court — both of which carry very low success rates, particularly following a Rule 36 disposition.
The cancellation eliminates risk from US8812993B2 specifically, but does not necessarily clear Samsung or Apple — or any other defendant — from exposure under other Neonode patents. Companies should audit the full Neonode portfolio, particularly continuation and divisional applications that may share the same priority chain and claim similar touchscreen UI functionality, before concluding that all Neonode-related IP risk is resolved.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.