Power2B v. Samsung: Federal Circuit Issues Split Ruling on Display Patent
Power2B, Inc. challenged Samsung Electronics over US9569093B2, a patent covering displays and information input devices. After 717 days before the Federal Circuit, the court issued a nuanced split decision — affirming some findings, reversing others, and remanding remaining issues back to the lower tribunal.
Federal Circuit splits the difference on Power2B display patent validity
Power2B, Inc. filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 14 April 2023, challenging a patentability determination involving US9569093B2 — a patent directed to displays and information input devices. The respondent, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., one of the world’s largest manufacturers of consumer display and mobile device technology, opposed the appeal. The case presents a classic patentability dispute in the competitive display-technology sector, with commercial stakes typical of high-volume consumer electronics IP.
The Federal Circuit closed the case on 31 March 2025 with a characteristically complex split disposition: affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and vacated and remanded. This means some aspects of the underlying tribunal’s patentability findings survived appellate review without modification, others were overturned outright, and still further issues were nullified and sent back for reconsideration. Separately, the court dismissed part of the appeal on procedural grounds, suggesting certain claims or grounds were not properly before the court.
The 717-day appellate timeline is consistent with contested PTAB-origin patentability appeals at the Federal Circuit, which routinely involve dense claim-construction and obviousness records. The split outcome suggests the Federal Circuit found merit in Power2B’s arguments on at least some claims while rejecting others — a result that leaves the ultimate validity landscape of US9569093B2 partially unresolved pending remand. The precise commercial impact on Samsung’s display and input device product lines will depend on the outcome of the remanded proceedings, which remain undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in Part in 717 days
717 days at the Federal Circuit — longer than the median PTAB appeal disposition
Federal Circuit’s split ruling: what affirmed, reversed, and remanded means
What a split Federal Circuit disposition actually means
An ‘affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated and remanded’ ruling means the Federal Circuit reviewed the underlying tribunal’s patentability findings claim-by-claim or ground-by-ground. Where it found no reversible legal error, it affirmed. Where it identified legal error, it reversed. Where further factual development is required, it vacated those portions and remanded. No single party can claim a clean win — the final validity picture will only emerge after remand proceedings conclude.
Multi-outcome appellate rulingPower2B wins on some claims — but remand keeps validity unsettled
The reversal-in-part component is a partial victory for Power2B: the Federal Circuit found the lower tribunal legally erred on at least some patentability issues, potentially restoring validity to certain claims of US9569093B2. However, the vacatur and remand mean Power2B has not secured a definitive ruling across the board. Enforcement opportunities remain constrained until remand proceedings clarify which claims survive.
Partial claim survival — remand pendingSamsung retains partial wins but faces re-opened validity questions
Samsung prevailed on the affirmed-in-part portions, preserving the cancellation or invalidity of some Power2B claims. The dismissal-in-part also eliminated certain grounds from further review, a procedural benefit for Samsung. However, the reversal and remand re-open validity questions on other claims, meaning Samsung’s display and input device products may face renewed patentability scrutiny at the tribunal level before this dispute is finally resolved.
Partial win, renewed exposure on remandUnresolved validity creates licensing and design-around uncertainty
For companies operating in the display and information input device sector, the split ruling signals that US9569093B2 cannot yet be treated as finally invalid or finally valid. Third parties should monitor remand proceedings closely. Those relying on Samsung-style products may face a revived infringement landscape if remand reinstates key claims. The case also illustrates the Federal Circuit’s willingness to disaggregate PTAB obviousness findings at the claim level — a pattern relevant to any portfolio built around multi-claim display interface patents.
Monitor remand proceedings closelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Power2B, Inc. | Company | Display and input device patent holder — asserting US9569093B2 against SamsungSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — global consumer electronics and display manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason Wietjes | Attorney | Counsel for Power2B, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Polsinelli PC | Law Firm | Representing Power2B, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan K. Yagura. | 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 ‘affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated and remanded’ disposition reflects a granular, claim-level review applying de novo scrutiny to legal questions such as obviousness and claim construction, while deferring to supported factual findings below. The partial reversal indicates the court identified at least one legal error in the underlying patentability determination. The vacatur and remand signal that certain issues require further fact-finding or re-evaluation under corrected legal standards. Neither party secured a complete appellate victory — the ultimate validity of US9569093B2 remains contingent on remand proceedings.
US9569093B2 — Displays and Information Input Devices
US9569093B2 (application number US14/148309) is a granted US utility patent in the domain of displays and information input devices. The patent covers interactive display and input technologies — a broad and commercially contested space that spans touchscreen interfaces, display-integrated input systems, and related human-machine interaction architectures. Its claim scope, as contested in this proceeding, spans patentability grounds including validity challenges typical of PTAB inter partes review proceedings appealed to the Federal Circuit.
Display and input device patents occupy a strategically sensitive position in consumer electronics and industrial HMI markets. Samsung’s involvement as a respondent reflects the commercial significance of the asserted claims to high-volume device manufacturing. A patent of this type, if claims survive remand, could support licensing assertions against a wide range of display product manufacturers and component suppliers. The Federal Circuit’s split ruling suggests the claim scope is neither trivially invalid nor unassailably strong — making ongoing monitoring of remand proceedings commercially essential.
Should your team run an FTO against US9569093B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating display and information input device technology — particularly interactive or touch-based display systems — should treat US9569093B2 as an active FTO consideration. The Federal Circuit’s partial reversal means at least some claims may be restored to full validity on remand. Product teams launching new display interface hardware or software in the US market face a materially uncertain clearance landscape until remand concludes.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the current claim status of US9569093B2 against your product architecture, cross-reference the remand record for restored claim scope, and surface design-around options grounded in prior art cited during the PTAB proceedings. For companies competing in Samsung’s display segment, Eureka can also identify related Power2B portfolio patents that may present co-pending enforcement risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9569093B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit display patent validity appeals
Explore related Federal Circuit patentability appeals involving display and input device patents, including comparable split dispositions from PTAB-origin proceedings.
What this case signals for the display technology IP landscape
A split Federal Circuit ruling on a display and input device patent creates stratified validity risk — and distinct enforcement opportunities — for the sector.
Split Federal Circuit outcomes demand claim-level validity mapping
When the Federal Circuit affirms some findings and reverses others on the same patent, practitioners must map each claim’s status individually. Blanket assumptions about US9569093B2 — valid or invalid — are unsupported until remand concludes. In-house teams at display manufacturers should update their invalidity matrices promptly.
Partial dismissal signals procedural gatekeeping risk for appellants
The dismissal-in-part finding suggests some grounds were not procedurally preserved or properly presented on appeal. This is a standing warning for IP counsel: procedural compliance in PTAB appeals — from petition framing to Federal Circuit briefing — can foreclose substantive arguments before they reach the merits.
Power2B v Samsung — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit issued a split disposition: affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, and vacated and remanded, with the appeal also dismissed in part. This means some patentability findings below were upheld, others were overturned, and remaining issues were sent back for further proceedings. No single party secured a complete win.
US9569093B2 (application US14/148309) is a granted US patent covering displays and information input devices. It relates to interactive display and input technologies relevant to consumer electronics and human-machine interfaces. The patent was at the centre of a patentability challenge that reached the Federal Circuit in case 23-1753.
Vacated and remanded means the Federal Circuit nullified portions of the lower tribunal’s patentability decision and sent those specific issues back for reconsideration under corrected legal standards. The underlying tribunal must re-examine those issues, meaning the validity of certain claims of US9569093B2 is not yet finally determined.
The public record identifies the basis of termination as ‘appeal dismissed in part,’ which typically signals that some grounds or claims were not properly preserved for appellate review, fell outside the court’s jurisdiction, or were otherwise procedurally foreclosed. The dismissal-in-part does not reflect a merits ruling on those specific grounds.
The split ruling means US9569093B2 cannot be treated as definitively invalid or valid in its entirety. Companies in the display and input device sector face stratified claim-level risk. Those competing with or supplying Samsung should monitor remand proceedings closely, as a pro-patentee outcome could revive licensing exposure across a broad range of display interface products.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.