Resonant Systems v. Sony: Vibration Module Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice After 910 Days
Resonant Systems, Inc. (d/b/a RevelHMI) sued Sony Group Corporation and Sony Interactive Entertainment in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three patents covering linear and linear-resonant vibration modules. After 910 days of litigation before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice, each bearing its own costs.
Three vibration-module patents, two Sony entities, one joint stipulation
In October 2022, Resonant Systems, Inc., operating under the trade name RevelHMI, filed a patent infringement complaint in the Eastern District of Texas against Sony Group Corporation and its subsidiary Sony Interactive Entertainment, Inc. The suit asserted three United States patents — US9369081B2, US8860337B2, and US9941830B2 — all directed at linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration module technology, which is closely associated with haptic feedback systems used in consumer electronics including gaming controllers.
After 910 days of litigation, the parties filed a Joint Motion and Stipulation to Dismiss with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Rodney Gilstrap acknowledged and accepted the stipulation, closing the case with all claims dismissed with prejudice. Critically, each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, indicating no prevailing-party fee award was sought or granted.
A dismissal with prejudice after nearly two and a half years of active litigation — without a trial verdict — is consistent with a confidential settlement in which the parties reached private terms but structured the public exit as a joint stipulation. The absence of any fee-shifting order and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement may suggest a negotiated resolution rather than a capitulation by either side. The specific commercial terms, if any, remain undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 910 days
910 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases, suggesting substantive pre-trial activity before resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice — what it means
A dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a final, joint stipulated exit from litigation. ‘With prejudice’ means Resonant Systems cannot refile the same claims against Sony on these three patents. The court retains no ongoing jurisdiction over the merits. This is a permanent bar, distinguishing it sharply from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the door open for refiling.
Permanent claim barResonant Systems forfeits the right to refile — but may have secured private terms
By stipulating to a with-prejudice dismissal, Resonant Systems permanently surrendered its right to reassert US9369081B2, US8860337B2, and US9941830B2 against Sony in any future action on the same accused products. However, the mutual cost-bearing arrangement and the late-stage timing — after 910 days — are consistent with a confidential resolution. The public record does not confirm or deny whether licensing or financial terms were exchanged.
No further claims against SonySony exits with a permanent bar — no public admission of infringement
Sony Group Corporation and Sony Interactive Entertainment obtained a final dismissal that permanently bars Resonant Systems from reasserting these three vibration-module patents against them. No infringement finding, no damages award, and no injunction appear in the public record. Sony bears its own legal costs, which after nearly three years of litigation with DLA Piper and Erise IP involvement suggests a significant internal spend regardless of any private settlement terms.
Permanent immunity on these patentsVibration module IP remains live — Sony cleared, others are not
The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the dispute between Resonant Systems and Sony. The three asserted patents remain in force and enforceable against other parties. Competitors operating in haptic feedback, gaming controllers, or linear-resonant actuator markets should note that Resonant Systems’ patent portfolio has not been invalidated. Any company deploying similar vibration module technology should consider whether these patents pose an ongoing FTO risk.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC. | Company | Haptic and vibration technology IP licensor — holder of US9369081B2, US8860337B2, and US9941830B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Sony Group Corporation | Company | Sony Group Corporation and Sony Interactive Entertainment, Inc. — global consumer electronics and gaming hardware makerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Sony Interactive Entertainment, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christian W. Conkle | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel Benjamin Kolko | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason Wietholter | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kristopher Ryan Davis | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Anthony Kroeger | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Qi Tong | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Reza Mirzaie | 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 ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles) | Law Firm | Representing RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Abran James Kean | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aima Mori | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Derek R. Gretkowski | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Edward H. Sikorski | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric A. Buresh | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Travis Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Christopher Lang | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Martin Ellison | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew D. Satchwell | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nick Apel | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard T. Mulloy | Attorney | Counsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper, LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Erise, IP PA (Overland Park) | Law Firm | Representing Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Erise IP | Law Firm | Representing Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Erise, IP PA (Colorado) | Law Firm | Representing Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is a ministerial acceptance of a joint stipulation rather than a merits adjudication — Judge Gilstrap ‘acknowledges and accepts’ the dismissal rather than ruling on infringement or validity. The ‘with prejudice’ language is the operative legal consequence: it forecloses any future action by Resonant Systems against Sony on these claims. The mutual cost-bearing directive confirms no prevailing-party determination was made, leaving commercial terms, if any, entirely outside the public record.
US9369081B2, US8860337B2 & US9941830B2 — linear vibration module technology
The three asserted patents — US9369081B2 (application US14/469210), US8860337B2 (application US13/345607), and US9941830B2 (application US15/181249) — cover linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules. These patents address the hardware and control-system architecture underlying precision haptic feedback, a technology integral to gaming controllers, mobile devices, wearables, and industrial human-machine interfaces. The application dates span from 2012 to 2016, suggesting a portfolio built across successive generations of vibration actuator technology.
Haptic feedback has become a key product differentiation vector in consumer electronics, particularly gaming peripherals, where Sony’s DualSense controller represents a high-profile commercial embodiment of advanced vibration technology. A three-patent portfolio covering both the module hardware and resonant control methods creates broad claim coverage that can reach component suppliers, OEM assemblers, and finished-goods sellers. The fact that Sony deployed three law firms to defend suggests these patents were assessed as posing meaningful validity and infringement risk across its product range.
Should your team run an FTO against US9369081B2, US8860337B2, and US9941830B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating linear vibration actuators, linear-resonant modules, or haptic feedback systems into consumer electronics, gaming hardware, wearables, or industrial HMI products should treat this portfolio as an active FTO concern. The patents survived a 910-day district court proceeding without invalidation. Resonant Systems retains full enforcement rights against parties other than Sony, and the with-prejudice dismissal provides no shelter to third parties.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s vibration and haptic hardware architecture against the claim scope of all three patents, identify prosecution history estoppel limits, surface relevant prior art that could support an IPR petition, and flag design-around pathways. For product teams expanding into haptic-enabled devices for the US market, an FTO run before launch is substantially cheaper than defending a well-resourced E.D. Texas infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9369081B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar haptic and vibration module patent cases in E.D. Texas and related courts
Cases involving haptic feedback, linear-resonant actuator, and vibration module patents in E.D. Texas and comparable district courts — with comparable dismissal and settlement patterns.
What this case signals for the haptic and vibration technology IP landscape
A 910-day E.D. Texas suit ending in a with-prejudice joint stipulation carries clear signals for haptic IP strategy and Sony’s competitors.
E.D. Texas remains a high-stakes venue for consumer electronics patent suits
Judge Gilstrap’s docket consistently produces substantive pre-trial pressure. A 910-day lifespan before a with-prejudice exit is consistent with cases that survive claim construction and reach the eve of trial — or full Markman proceedings — before settling. Companies with linear vibration or haptic module exposure in E.D. Texas should prepare for a long, resource-intensive defence posture.
Three live patents targeting vibration modules pose ongoing risk for non-Sony defendants
US9369081B2, US8860337B2, and US9941830B2 were not invalidated in this case. Resonant Systems retains full enforcement rights. Any manufacturer or integrator of linear-resonant actuators, haptic controllers, or similar vibration feedback hardware should conduct an FTO analysis against this portfolio before launching or expanding products in the US market.
RESONANT v Sony — key questions answered
Resonant Systems, Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against Sony Group Corporation and Sony Interactive Entertainment in October 2022 in E.D. Texas, asserting three vibration module patents. After 910 days, the parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss all claims with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party bears its own costs. No infringement finding or damages award was made.
Dismissed with prejudice means Resonant Systems is permanently barred from reasserting US9369081B2, US8860337B2, and US9941830B2 against Sony in any future action based on the same claims. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable — but only against parties other than Sony under this specific stipulation.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the dispute between Resonant Systems and Sony. No invalidity ruling or IPR outcome appears in the public record. US9369081B2, US8860337B2, and US9941830B2 remain in force and can be asserted against any other party operating in the linear vibration or haptic module space.
A 910-day duration before a joint dismissal in E.D. Texas is consistent with cases that progress through claim construction (Markman) proceedings and substantial discovery before reaching a negotiated resolution. The late-stage, mutual cost-bearing exit is typically associated with confidential settlement. The public record does not disclose whether any financial or licensing terms were exchanged.
The case record identifies linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules as the accused product category. Sony Interactive Entertainment’s involvement suggests gaming hardware — most plausibly vibration and haptic systems in PlayStation controllers — was within scope. The specific accused products are not enumerated in the publicly available verdict order.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.