Resonant Systems v. Samsung — Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Resonant Systems, Inc. and Samsung Electronics jointly agreed to dismiss their Federal Circuit appeal (Case No. 25-1551) concerning US9941830B2, a patent covering linear and linear-resonant vibration modules. Filed in March 2025 and closed within 268 days, the dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) leaves each side bearing its own costs and no merits ruling on record.
Joint Federal Circuit exit leaves vibration patent validity unresolved
Resonant Systems, Inc., holder of US9941830B2 directed to linear and linear-resonant vibration module technology, filed this Federal Circuit appeal on 17 March 2025 against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The appeal arose from a patentability/invalidity action, with the underlying dispute centred on whether the ‘830 patent claims should survive challenge. Russ August & Kabat LLP represented Resonant Systems; Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP acted for Samsung.
The proceedings were terminated on 10 December 2025 by a joint order under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), the procedural mechanism that permits parties to stipulate to dismissal at the appellate level. No merits decision was issued. The court ordered each side to bear its own costs, suggesting the parties reached some form of accommodation — though the public record does not confirm the terms or whether any licence, settlement payment, or covenant not to sue was involved.
At 268 days, the case resolved before the Federal Circuit would typically have completed full merits briefing, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution reached during or shortly after the briefing phase. What drove the exit — whether commercial settlement, licensing agreement, or strategic withdrawal — is not disclosed in the public record. The validity of US9941830B2 therefore remains formally unadjudicated at the appellate level, a material consideration for any party operating in the haptic or vibration actuator space.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 268 days
268-day appeal duration — resolved before full Federal Circuit briefing cycle typically concludes
Voluntarily dismissed: what the joint exit means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): how a joint appellate dismissal works
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows parties to jointly stipulate to dismissal of an appeal at any time. The court enters the dismissal as ordered — not as a merits ruling. This means no precedent is set, no claim construction is adopted, and the underlying invalidity question is left unresolved at the appellate level. The cost provision here — each side bears its own — was expressly ordered by the court, consistent with the parties’ agreement.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal can be entered with prejudice (barring re-litigation of the same claims) or without prejudice (preserving future re-filing rights). The court order in this case states only that proceedings are ‘DISMISSED’ under Rule 42(b) — it does not specify either form. Practitioners should not assume either outcome. The distinction carries significant consequences for whether Resonant Systems could re-assert validity arguments or whether Samsung retains the right to re-challenge the ‘830 patent on the same grounds.
Prejudice status unconfirmedUS9941830B2 survives appeal — but without appellate validation
For Resonant Systems, the dismissal means US9941830B2 remains in force without the Federal Circuit having ruled on its validity. The patent is neither vindicated nor invalidated by this outcome. Depending on the underlying PTAB or district court decision that was appealed, the patent’s enforceability posture may be unchanged, strengthened, or weakened — context that would require review of the lower-court record. No appellate endorsement of the claims has been issued.
Patent status unchanged by appealSamsung exits without an invalidity finding on the record
Samsung’s agreement to dismiss suggests the parties found a path outside continued litigation, but Samsung obtains no formal invalidity ruling it could rely on as a defence in future proceedings. Absent a with-prejudice dismissal, the risk of re-engagement on the ‘830 patent’s validity — through re-examination, IPR, or new district court proceedings — is not eliminated. Companies in the haptic and vibration actuator sector should monitor whether the underlying dispute resurfaces in a different forum.
No invalidity finding securedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC. | Company | Vibration technology IP holder — owner of US9941830B2 covering 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 dismissal order is brief and procedural: it records the parties’ agreement, invokes Rule 42(b), and disposes of costs — nothing more. Notably, the order does not characterise the dismissal as with or without prejudice, which leaves the preclusive effect of this resolution legally ambiguous. No claim construction, no validity holding, and no factual findings are embedded in the order. For practitioners, this means the order cannot be cited as persuasive or binding authority on the merits of US9941830B2’s patentability in any subsequent proceeding.
US9941830B2 — linear and linear-resonant vibration module technology
US9941830B2, filed under application number US15/181249, protects linear vibration module technology — specifically linear-resonant actuator (LRA) designs used in haptic feedback systems. LRAs are the dominant actuator type in modern smartphones, wearables, and game controllers, offering more precise and energy-efficient vibration than eccentric rotating mass (ERM) motors. The patent’s claims directed to this core actuation mechanism place it at the centre of a high-volume consumer electronics supply chain.
The patent’s commercial significance derives from the ubiquity of LRA-based haptics in flagship mobile devices and the increasing use of programmable vibration in automotive HMI, medical wearables, and XR controllers. Samsung, as one of the world’s largest smartphone manufacturers, is a natural enforcement target for any LRA patent. The patentability challenge brought in this case signals that at least one party viewed the ‘830 claims as potentially vulnerable — but the voluntary dismissal means that vulnerability, if real, was never confirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9941830B2?
Any company manufacturing, importing, or integrating linear-resonant vibration actuators into consumer electronics, wearables, automotive controls, or medical devices should treat US9941830B2 as an active FTO concern. The patent remains in force, its validity has not been appellate-tested, and the case history suggests the holder is prepared to pursue high-profile defendants. OEM procurement teams sourcing haptic modules and chip suppliers integrating driver ICs for LRAs are equally within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables engineering and IP teams to map product architectures against the claim language of US9941830B2, identify prosecution history estoppel, and surface related continuations or divisional applications in the Resonant Systems portfolio. Eureka can also flag pending PTAB proceedings or new district court filings that may affect the enforceability posture of the ‘830 patent — giving your team real-time visibility before a design-in decision is finalised.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9941830B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in haptic and vibration actuator patent disputes
Federal Circuit appeals involving LRA and haptic module patents from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with similar patentability and invalidity postures.
What this case signals for the haptic and vibration actuator IP landscape
A joint Federal Circuit exit without merits resolution leaves US9941830B2 in a strategically ambiguous posture that warrants active monitoring.
Unadjudicated validity creates ongoing FTO risk in vibration technology
Because no Federal Circuit merits ruling was issued, US9941830B2’s validity has not been appellate-tested. Competitors in the linear actuator and haptic feedback space — including smartphone, wearable, and automotive HMI manufacturers — cannot rely on this proceeding as evidence of the patent’s weakness or strength. An independent FTO review remains the prudent step before product launch or design-in decisions.
Cost neutrality in joint dismissals often signals a negotiated resolution
When each party bears its own costs in a voluntary Federal Circuit dismissal, this typically suggests a negotiated outcome — licence, covenant, or settlement — rather than a unilateral withdrawal. While the terms are confidential, the pattern is consistent with Resonant Systems securing some commercial value from Samsung in exchange for ending the appeal. IP professionals should treat the patent as commercially active until further public filings indicate otherwise.
RESONANT v Samsung — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal was voluntarily dismissed by joint agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 10 December 2025. No merits ruling on the validity of US9941830B2 was issued. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
US9941830B2 (application US15/181249) covers linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules — the actuator technology widely used in smartphone and wearable haptic feedback systems. The appeal arose from an invalidity/cancellation action challenging the patent’s patentability. Samsung, as a major global manufacturer of devices using LRA haptics, was the respondent in the appeal.
Neither. A voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) is a procedural termination with no merits determination. The Federal Circuit made no finding on validity, claim construction, or patentability. The patent remains in force as issued, but the dismissal cannot be cited as evidence of its validity or invalidity in future proceedings.
It means the court declined to award litigation costs to either party, as is typical in agreed dismissals. This is distinct from an attorney-fees award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for exceptional cases. The cost-neutral outcome is consistent with a negotiated resolution, as prevailing parties in fully litigated appeals would ordinarily seek a cost award against the losing side.
The answer depends on whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice — a detail the public order does not specify. If without prejudice, Samsung could theoretically file a new IPR petition or raise invalidity in future district court litigation. Resonant Systems could also pursue new enforcement actions. Practitioners should review the underlying PTAB or district court record for any preclusion findings that may constrain future proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.