Samsung v. Nanoco Technologies: Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed (Case 22-1849)
Samsung Electronics challenged the patentability of Nanoco Technologies' US7803423B2, a patent covering nanoparticle material preparation. The Federal Circuit appeal, filed in May 2022, was dismissed by joint agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) after 253 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Samsung and Nanoco agree to dismiss Federal Circuit nanoparticle appeal
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. initiated Case 22-1849 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 31 May 2022, appealing a patentability determination concerning Nanoco Technologies Ltd.'s US7803423B2. The patent in suit covers the preparation of nanoparticle materials — a foundational technology domain spanning quantum dot displays, LED backlighting, and advanced semiconductor applications. The underlying verdict cause is recorded as an invalidity or cancellation action, consistent with Samsung's position as challenger to Nanoco's patent rights.
The appeal was terminated on 8 February 2023. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Appeal Dismissed'; the docket order states that the proceedings were dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by joint agreement of the parties, with each side bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued by the Federal Circuit. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement to dismiss are not disclosed in the available record.
The 253-day lifespan of the appeal — from filing to dismissal — is relatively brief for Federal Circuit patent proceedings, suggesting the parties reached their arrangement well before any substantive briefing schedule concluded. What motivated the joint dismissal, and whether any commercial understanding accompanied it, is not reflected in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 253 days
253 days from filing to dismissal — under the Federal Circuit's median for patent appeals
US7803423B2 — Preparation of nanoparticle materials
Any company active in the preparation, supply, or incorporation of nanoparticle materials — including quantum dot films, LED phosphors, nanocrystal synthesis, and related semiconductor components — should treat US7803423B2 as a live FTO consideration. This Federal Circuit appeal closed without a validity ruling, meaning the patent has not been judicially invalidated at the appellate level. Product teams commercialising cadmium-free or cadmium-based nanoparticle preparation processes in particular should assess their exposure.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order records a dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on joint motion, with costs to lie where they fall. This is a purely procedural termination of the appeal — the Federal Circuit made no finding on the patentability or validity of US7803423B2. The equal costs order is consistent with a negotiated resolution, though the specific terms of any underlying agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Appeal dismissed: what the Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) order means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) dismissal: no merits adjudication
A dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) is a procedural termination of the appeal by agreement of the parties. The Federal Circuit issues no ruling on the merits — the underlying patentability or invalidity question is not resolved by this order. The dismissal closes the appellate proceeding without establishing any precedent on the validity of US7803423B2.
Stipulated dismissal — no merits rulingNanoco's patent survives this appellate challenge without a merits ruling
Because the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits, any prior determination affecting US7803423B2 is the last substantive word from the record available here. Nanoco retains its patent without an adverse Federal Circuit ruling. Whether the patent's enforceability was affected by proceedings below is not resolved at this appellate stage. The specific terms of the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
No adverse appellate ruling against NanocoSamsung's invalidity challenge ends at Federal Circuit without a decision
Samsung initiated this appeal in the context of an invalidity or cancellation action targeting Nanoco's nanoparticle patent. By jointly agreeing to dismiss, Samsung's appellate challenge concludes without a finding of invalidity by the Federal Circuit. Future challenge options — including any remaining IPR pathways or district court proceedings — would need to be assessed separately. The record is silent on Samsung's motivations for the joint dismissal.
No invalidity finding — appeal withdrawnNanoparticle IP landscape: uncertainty persists after non-merits dismissal
A Rule 42(b) dismissal leaves the underlying patent in a state of unresolved challenge for competitors and product teams active in nanoparticle materials, quantum dot technology, and adjacent semiconductor applications. Companies seeking freedom to operate in this space cannot rely on a Federal Circuit invalidity ruling from this proceeding. Independent FTO analysis against US7803423B2 remains advisable for any party commercialising nanoparticle preparation technology.
FTO analysis still requiredFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Plaintiff | Individual | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — challenger to US7803423B2 in invalidity/cancellation proceedingsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Defendant | Individual | Nanoco Technologies Ltd. — UK-based nanomaterial company and holder of US7803423B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the nanoparticle and quantum dot IP space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from the Samsung v. Nanoco Federal Circuit proceeding — tracking portfolio activity, filing trends, and white space in nanomaterial synthesis.
Nanoco's nanoparticle portfolio: breadth beyond US7803423B2
Nanoco Technologies has built a multi-patent estate in nanocrystal and quantum dot synthesis, extending beyond the single patent at issue in this appeal. Mapping Nanoco's full filing activity — particularly in cadmium-free quantum dot chemistry and surface-passivation methods — reveals the landscape of potential licensing obligations for manufacturers in the display and semiconductor sectors.
Nanoco IP portfolio mappingNanoparticle preparation: filing trends and competitive density
Patent filing activity in nanoparticle preparation and quantum dot synthesis has intensified as display manufacturers and material suppliers compete for upstream IP positions. Tracking filing trends by key players — including Samsung SDI, Nanosys, Merck, and Nanoco — surfaces which synthesis routes and material classes are most contested and where crowding risk is highest for new entrants.
QD synthesis filing trendsSamsung's quantum dot patent filings post-2022: design-around signals
Samsung Electronics is an active filer in quantum dot display and nanoparticle material technology. Analysing Samsung's own patent applications filed after this Federal Circuit proceeding may reveal design-around strategies, alternative synthesis routes, or new material compositions that Samsung is developing independently of Nanoco's patented processes.
Samsung QD patent activityAdjacent R&D opportunity: cadmium-free nanoparticle synthesis routes
With core nanoparticle preparation patents held by incumbents like Nanoco under active challenge, adjacent synthesis chemistries — particularly cadmium-free indium phosphide and perovskite nanocrystal routes — represent potential white-space opportunities. Companies filing in these sub-domains may position themselves outside the claim scope of established portfolios while addressing the same commercial display and lighting markets.
Cadmium-free nanocrystal white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit patent appeals in nanoparticle and quantum dot technology
Explore comparable patentability and invalidity appeals at the Federal Circuit involving nanoparticle materials, quantum dot synthesis, and nanomaterial process patents.
What this case signals for the nanoparticle and quantum dot IP landscape
A stipulated Federal Circuit dismissal in a patentability challenge leaves the nanoparticle IP field without appellate clarity — and raises monitoring priorities for competitors.
Non-merits dismissal preserves Nanoco's patent but offers no certainty to either side
US7803423B2 exits this Federal Circuit proceeding without an appellate validity ruling. For competitors in quantum dot displays and nanoparticle manufacturing, this means the patent remains a live enforcement risk. Independent FTO analysis against the '423 patent should be treated as a live priority, not a closed question.
Samsung's withdrawal signals a shifted calculus — but the record is silent on terms
A joint dismissal this early in the appellate lifecycle — 253 days, before full merits briefing would typically conclude — suggests the parties' commercial or legal calculus shifted. Whether this reflects a settlement, a licence arrangement, or a strategic retreat is not disclosed. Monitoring both parties' subsequent litigation activity in nanoparticle IP is warranted.
Plaintiff v Defendant — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal in Case 22-1849 was dismissed on 8 February 2023 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by joint agreement of the parties. Samsung had appealed a patentability determination relating to Nanoco's US7803423B2. No merits ruling was issued. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs.
A dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) is a procedural termination of the appeal on joint motion — the Federal Circuit makes no finding on the validity or patentability of the patent. US7803423B2 therefore exits this proceeding without an appellate invalidity ruling. The patent's enforceability must be assessed independently; the specific terms of the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The available public record does not disclose the reasons for the joint dismissal. The 253-day duration — relatively short for a Federal Circuit patent appeal — suggests the parties reached their arrangement before full merits briefing concluded. Whether any commercial agreement, licence, or other arrangement underlies the dismissal is not reflected in the docket.
US7803423B2 (application US11/579050), assigned to Nanoco Technologies Ltd., is directed to the preparation of nanoparticle materials. This technology domain encompasses quantum dot synthesis, nanocrystal preparation methods, and related processes relevant to display manufacturing, LED backlighting, and semiconductor applications. Samsung challenged the patent's patentability in an invalidity or cancellation action.
Yes — because the dismissal was procedural and the Federal Circuit issued no invalidity ruling, US7803423B2 remains a live patent. Companies commercialising nanoparticle preparation technology cannot rely on this Federal Circuit proceeding as a basis for freedom to operate. Independent FTO analysis against US7803423B2 and Nanoco's broader portfolio remains advisable.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.