Resonant Systems v. Samsung: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Resonant Systems, Inc. brought a patentability challenge against Samsung Electronics at the Federal Circuit over US9369081B2, covering linear-resonant vibration modules. The parties jointly agreed to dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) in 268 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
A consensual exit from the Federal Circuit with no merits adjudication
Resonant Systems, Inc. filed Case No. 25-1549 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 17 March 2025, appealing a patentability or invalidity/cancellation determination involving US9369081B2 — a patent directed to linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules — asserted against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The appeal followed what the verdict cause characterises as an invalidity or cancellation action, suggesting the underlying proceeding may have been an inter partes review or similar post-grant challenge.
The case closed on 10 December 2025 when both parties jointly agreed to dismiss the appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). The court ordered the dismissal and provided that each side would bear its own costs. Because the dismissal was voluntary and agreed by both parties, the Federal Circuit issued no ruling on the merits of the patentability dispute. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice to any further proceedings.
At 268 days from filing to closure, the case resolved relatively quickly for a Federal Circuit appeal, consistent with the parties reaching a negotiated resolution before full merits briefing concluded. What drove the agreement — whether licensing terms, a commercial settlement, or a strategic decision to drop the challenge — is not disclosed in the public record. The absence of a merits ruling means the validity status of US9369081B2 remains formally undisturbed by this proceeding.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 268 days
268 days — resolved before full Federal Circuit briefing cycle in most appeals
Appeal voluntarily dismissed: what the agreed exit means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) — agreed dismissal, no merits ruling
Rule 42(b) permits parties at the Federal Circuit to jointly stipulate to dismissal of an appeal at any time. The court acts ministerially on a joint motion, issuing no opinion and making no finding on the underlying patent’s validity. This means the invalidity or cancellation dispute over US9369081B2 was never adjudicated on the merits at the appellate level — the legal questions raised remain open.
Procedural dismissal — no meritsWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) can be entered with or without prejudice to future proceedings, but the court’s order in this case does not specify. The distinction matters: a dismissal without prejudice could leave open the possibility of a renewed validity challenge, while one with prejudice would foreclose it. Practitioners should not assume either outcome from the face of this order alone — the underlying agreement between the parties, if any, governs.
Prejudice status unspecifiedEach side bears own costs — no fee-shifting signal
The court’s order expressly provides that each side shall bear its own costs, which is the standard outcome in a consensual Rule 42(b) dismissal. This allocation is neutral and should not be read as a finding of frivolousness or bad faith by either party. It is also consistent with a negotiated resolution in which neither party conceded sufficient leverage to shift fees to the other side.
Neutral cost orderUS9369081B2 validity not resolved by this appeal
Because the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal before issuing any merits decision, the validity status of US9369081B2 — covering linear vibration and linear-resonant vibration modules — is formally undisturbed by this proceeding. Any earlier decision from the tribunal below (e.g., a PTAB ruling) retains its effect unless separately vacated or reversed. Competitors and licensees in the haptic and vibration module space should confirm the patent’s current prosecution and PTAB history independently.
Patent status: check underlying recordFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC. | Company | Vibration technology IP holder — asserting US9369081B2 on linear-resonant vibration modulesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — global consumer electronics manufacturer and appeal respondentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Neil Rubin | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ali Reza Sharifahmadian | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer 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 court’s order recites that ‘the parties having so agreed’ the proceedings are dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. This phrasing confirms a purely consensual, bilateral exit — the Federal Circuit made no finding on patentability, invalidity, or claim scope. The mutual cost order is procedurally neutral. Practitioners should note that the order does not specify whether the dismissal carries preclusive effect; the underlying agreement between the parties, which is not part of the public record, would ordinarily govern any future re-litigation risk.
US9369081B2 — Linear-Resonant Vibration Module Technology
US9369081B2 (application no. US14/469210) protects linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules — the actuator technology that generates precise haptic feedback in smartphones, wearables, and other consumer devices. Linear-resonant actuators (LRAs) are preferred over eccentric rotating mass motors in premium devices because they deliver faster, more controllable haptic responses. The patent’s claims, as asserted in an invalidity or cancellation context, were the subject of post-grant scrutiny, suggesting the specification addresses core design choices in LRA architecture.
Linear-resonant vibration technology sits at the intersection of consumer electronics hardware design and haptic UX. Samsung integrates LRA-class actuators across its Galaxy smartphone and wearable lines, making any valid and enforceable patent in this space commercially significant. A patent covering module-level vibration architecture could implicate both device OEMs and the component supply chain. With the Federal Circuit appeal dismissed without a merits ruling, US9369081B2 remains a live consideration for competitors — particularly those designing or sourcing linear vibration actuators for high-volume consumer products.
Should your team run an FTO against US9369081B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or sourcing linear vibration modules or linear-resonant actuators for smartphones, wearables, gaming controllers, or automotive haptic systems should treat US9369081B2 as a live FTO concern. The Federal Circuit dismissal did not invalidate the patent, and the underlying post-grant record — which may include a PTAB final written decision — requires independent review to determine current claim scope and any narrowing amendments made during inter partes review proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map the claim language of US9369081B2 against your product architecture, identify any prosecution history estoppel from the US14/469210 application file, and surface continuation or divisional applications in Resonant Systems’ portfolio that may carry related claims. Monitoring alerts can flag new filings or litigation events tied to this patent family before they escalate to enforcement.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9369081B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit haptic and vibration module patent appeals
Cases involving patentability disputes over linear vibration and haptic module technology at the Federal Circuit, including post-grant appeal dismissals and validity rulings.
What this case signals for the haptic and vibration module IP landscape
A mutual Federal Circuit walk-away over linear-resonant vibration IP may signal shifting dynamics in the haptic technology sector.
Voluntary Federal Circuit exits often reflect off-record settlements or licensing deals
When both parties agree to dismiss a Federal Circuit appeal with each side bearing costs, it typically signals a negotiated resolution — licensing agreement, cross-licence, or commercial settlement — rather than a unilateral concession. In the haptic and vibration module space, where IP is embedded in high-volume consumer devices, even modest royalty rates can drive commercially rational settlements before appellate merits are decided.
The underlying PTAB or cancellation record still governs patent validity
With no Federal Circuit merits ruling, any PTAB or district court decision from the underlying proceeding retains its legal effect. Companies monitoring US9369081B2 for freedom-to-operate purposes must examine the full post-grant history — not just this appellate dismissal — to assess the patent’s current claim scope and validity status.
RESONANT v Samsung — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal in Case 25-1549 was voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 10 December 2025, by agreement of both parties. No merits ruling was issued on the patentability of US9369081B2. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. The case had been filed on 17 March 2025 and closed after 268 days.
A Rule 42(b) dismissal means the Federal Circuit made no finding on the validity or invalidity of US9369081B2. The patent’s legal status is governed by whatever decision was reached in the underlying proceeding (e.g., a PTAB final written decision), which retains its effect unless separately overturned. The appellate dismissal neither confirms nor cancels any patent claims.
The court’s order does not specify whether the dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) was with or without prejudice. The public record is silent on this point. Any preclusive effect on future proceedings would be governed by the parties’ underlying agreement, which has not been made public.
US9369081B2 covers linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules — the actuator technology used to deliver haptic feedback in smartphones and wearables. Samsung integrates this class of actuator across its Galaxy device lineup. A valid and enforceable patent in this space could affect both device-level design freedom and component sourcing across the consumer electronics supply chain.
Resonant Systems, Inc. was represented by Neil Rubin of Russ August & Kabat LLP. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was represented by Ali Reza Sharifahmadian of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. The case was filed at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit under Case No. 25-1549.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.