Dismissal with prejudice in this case means Resonant Systems permanently relinquished its right to sue Samsung on the same claims under US9369081B2 and US9941830B2 regarding the accused linear vibration module products. The dismissal functions as a final judgment for claim-preclusion purposes, even though no court ruled on the merits.

No. The case was resolved by a joint motion to dismiss before any Markman hearing, summary judgment, or trial. Neither patent’s validity was adjudicated. Both patents remain presumptively valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and can be asserted against other parties in future proceedings.

This asymmetric structure is common in negotiated patent settlements. Dismissing plaintiff claims with prejudice gives the defendant certainty that the current dispute is permanently closed. Dismissing defendant counterclaims without prejudice preserves the defendant’s ability to raise invalidity or non-infringement arguments in any future related dispute — effectively retaining leverage for Samsung.

No. The court’s dismissal order explicitly states that the parties are to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. Neither side sought or received a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which requires a finding that the case is ‘exceptional.’ The mutual fee-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a litigation victory by either party.

US9369081B2 and US9941830B2 cover linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules — the actuator technology used to generate precise haptic feedback in consumer electronics such as smartphones and wearables. The patents relate to the mechanical and electronic architecture of linear resonant actuators (LRAs), which have largely replaced eccentric rotating mass motors in premium devices.