Power2B & Samsung America v. Samsung Co.: Federal Circuit Splits the Difference on Input System Patent
Power2B, Inc. and Samsung Electronics America jointly appealed a patentability ruling against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. over US8547364B2, covering input systems for controlling electronic devices. The Federal Circuit issued a mixed affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part decision after 664 days, leaving portions of the patent’s validity status altered on both sides.
Federal Circuit delivers a split ruling on electronic input system patent validity
Filed on 25 July 2023, Case No. 23-2184 brought Power2B, Inc. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as co-appellants challenging a patentability determination concerning US8547364B2. The patent, filed under application number US13/114580, covers an input system for controlling an electronic device — a technology category central to modern consumer electronics and human-machine interface design. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was the appellee defending the lower tribunal’s findings.
On 19 May 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a ruling that both affirmed and reversed portions of the decision below, while simultaneously dismissing part of the appeal on procedural grounds. An affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part outcome signals that the court found some claims or issues correctly decided at the lower level and others not — the reversal component represents a meaningful win for the appellants on at least one contested ground. The partial dismissal suggests certain issues did not clear the threshold for appellate review on the merits.
The 664-day duration is consistent with typical Federal Circuit appeal timelines for complex patentability disputes. What is notable is the tripartite outcome — affirmance, reversal, and partial dismissal — which suggests the appeal raised multiple discrete issues of varying procedural and substantive strength. The precise claims affected by the reversal versus affirmance are not fully detailed in the public docket summary, leaving open questions about the practical enforceability scope of US8547364B2 going forward.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 664 days
664 days from filing to Federal Circuit decision — longer than median CAFC appeal
Federal Circuit’s split decision: what affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part means for both parties
What ‘affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part’ means at the Federal Circuit
An affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part ruling means the Federal Circuit found no reversible error on some issues decided below, while identifying clear legal or factual error on others. The court applies de novo review to claim construction and legal patentability questions, and substantial evidence review to factual determinations from the USPTO or trial body. A split outcome typically reflects a multi-issue appeal where appellants succeeded on at least one ground but failed to dislodge the entire lower decision.
Mixed appellate outcomeAppellants secure a partial reversal — some patent positions restored
Power2B and Samsung Electronics America achieved a partial reversal, meaning the Federal Circuit disagreed with the lower tribunal on at least one material issue concerning US8547364B2. This could signal that certain cancelled or invalidated claims are restored, or that an incorrect legal standard was applied below. However, the affirmance component confirms that not all challenged positions survived — the patent’s enforceability scope likely remains narrower than the appellants originally sought.
Partial win for appellantsSamsung Co. retains ground on affirmed issues but loses on reversed portion
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as appellee benefits from the affirmed portion — those findings stand as final at this appellate level. However, the reversed portion represents a setback: the Federal Circuit found the lower decision incorrect on those grounds, which may revive claims or arguments that Samsung Co. believed were resolved in its favour. Further proceedings below may follow on the reversed issues, depending on the specific remand instructions.
Partial loss for appelleeInput system IP landscape faces continued uncertainty after split ruling
A split Federal Circuit decision on a human-machine interface input system patent signals ongoing IP risk in the consumer electronics sector. Competitors and product teams working on touchscreen, gesture, or multi-input control technologies should treat US8547364B2 as a partially live enforcement risk. The reversal component means at least some claims are more resilient than the lower proceeding suggested, raising the FTO burden for anyone operating in adjacent input system technology space.
Elevated FTO risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Power2B, Inc. | Company | Consumer electronics IP — co-holder asserting US8547364B2 input system patent on appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — global consumer electronics manufacturer, appellee defending lower rulingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam Peter Daniels AT | Attorney | Counsel for Power2B, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason Wietjes | Attorney | Counsel for Power2B, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark Thomas Deming | Attorney | Counsel for Power2B, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Polsinelli PC | Law Firm | Representing Power2B, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Abigail Grace McFee | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Argirenia Zervos | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Haber | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas Whilt | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Ken Yagura | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas Mcclinton Harris | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Fink | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’melveney & Myers 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 Federal Circuit’s order — ‘AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND REVERSED-IN-PART’ — is a compound appellate disposition reflecting substantive engagement with multiple discrete issues on patentability grounds. The court applied its standard review framework: de novo for legal questions such as claim construction and patent eligibility, and substantial evidence for underlying factual findings from the lower tribunal. The reversal component carries particular weight in a patentability context, as it suggests the lower body applied an incorrect legal standard or reached a conclusion unsupported by the record on at least one claim or ground. The partial dismissal confirms that not every issue presented cleared the threshold for merits adjudication, consistent with Federal Circuit practice on standing and issue preservation in PTAB appeals.
US8547364B2 — Input system for controlling an electronic device
US8547364B2, filed under application number US13/114580, protects an input system for controlling an electronic device. This technology domain sits at the intersection of human-machine interface design and consumer electronics hardware, encompassing methods and apparatus by which users interact with and direct the operation of electronic devices. Patents in this space typically claim novel input detection, signal processing, or control logic that differentiates the interface from prior art touchscreen, gesture, or button-based systems. The patent’s assignment to and assertion by Power2B alongside Samsung Electronics America suggests it covers technology embedded in or relevant to commercial consumer electronic products.
Input system patents occupy strategically high ground in the consumer electronics IP landscape because they potentially read on a broad range of end products — from smartphones and tablets to smart home controllers and wearables. US8547364B2’s involvement in a Federal Circuit appeal on patentability grounds, with a partial reversal outcome, signals that at least some of its claims have survived rigorous validity scrutiny at the appellate level. For competitors and product developers, this raises the patent’s commercial significance: a claim that survives Federal Circuit review carries stronger presumption of validity in any future infringement proceeding, increasing litigation exposure for those operating in adjacent input system technology spaces.
Should your team run an FTO against US8547364B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or selling products that incorporate input systems for controlling electronic devices — including touchscreens, gesture interfaces, remote input devices, or multi-modal control systems — should consider whether US8547364B2 poses a freedom-to-operate concern. The Federal Circuit’s partial reversal means at least a portion of this patent’s claims have been upheld or restored at the highest patent appellate level, strengthening their enforceability. Product teams launching new consumer electronics or updating existing input interface technology are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can help you map the claim scope of US8547364B2 against your product’s technical architecture, identify prior art that may support design-around strategies, and flag related family members or continuation patents that may extend the patent’s reach. With the Federal Circuit having issued a split ruling, a precise claim-level FTO — not a high-level patent family scan — is the appropriate level of analysis for IP and product teams in this space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8547364B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patentability appeals involving input system and interface technology
Explore related Federal Circuit appeals on input system and human-machine interface patent validity, including PTAB IPR outcomes and mixed affirm/reverse rulings in consumer electronics.
What this case signals for the consumer electronics input system IP landscape
A Federal Circuit split on input system patentability is rarely clean — here is what IP teams and product leads should take away.
Partial reversals at the Federal Circuit keep enforcement risk alive
When the Federal Circuit reverses even part of a patentability ruling, previously cancelled or narrowed claims may be restored. Teams designing around US8547364B2 on the assumption the patent was fully invalidated below should reassess their FTO position — the reversal component means at least some claim scope survives with appellate backing.
Partial dismissal signals not all appeal grounds were procedurally viable
The simultaneous partial dismissal suggests appellants raised issues that lacked standing, ripeness, or proper preservation for Federal Circuit review. This is a common pattern in PTAB appeals where certain estoppel or procedural bars limit the issues that can be raised on appeal — a reminder that appellate strategy must account for threshold procedural hurdles from the outset.
Power2B v Samsung — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued an affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part ruling on 19 May 2025. The court upheld portions of the lower patentability decision while reversing others, and dismissed part of the appeal on procedural grounds. The case concerned US8547364B2, an input system for controlling an electronic device.
It means the Federal Circuit agreed with some of the lower tribunal’s patentability findings and disagreed with others. At minimum, the reversal component suggests certain claims or grounds were incorrectly decided below — which may restore claim scope that had been cancelled or narrowed. The patent’s full enforceability scope will depend on the specific claims addressed in each portion of the ruling.
The public record does not detail the precise commercial relationship, but co-appellants in a patentability appeal typically share a common interest in the patent’s validity — suggesting a licensing arrangement, supply agreement, or joint ownership structure between Power2B and Samsung Electronics America that motivated coordinated appellate action against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
The basis of termination notes the appeal was dismissed in part. Partial dismissals at the Federal Circuit in patentability cases commonly arise from issues of standing, estoppel, issue preservation failures, or lack of jurisdiction over specific claims. The public docket does not specify which issues were dismissed or the precise procedural basis, so the exact scope of the dismissal remains uncertain from available records.
Yes, it suggests elevated FTO risk. A Federal Circuit reversal on patentability grounds typically means at least some claims of US8547364B2 are more valid — or less invalidated — than the lower decision indicated. Product developers working on input systems for electronic devices should conduct a fresh claim-level FTO analysis against US8547364B2 to assess whether their technology falls within any restored claim scope.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.