Samsung v. Nanoco Technologies: Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed (Case 22-1847)
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. challenged the patentability of Nanoco Technologies Ltd.'s US9680068B2, covering quantum dot films utilizing multi-phase resins, in an invalidity/cancellation action. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) after 253 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Samsung's Federal Circuit challenge to Nanoco's quantum dot patent ends without merits ruling
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed appellate case 22-1847 at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 31 May 2022, challenging the patentability of US9680068B2, held by Nanoco Technologies Ltd. The patent relates to quantum dot films utilizing multi-phase resins — a technology with significant relevance to display manufacturing. The underlying proceeding was characterised as an invalidity/cancellation action.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Appeal Dismissed.' The docket order states that the parties agreed to dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. The Federal Circuit entered the dismissal order on 8 February 2023. Because the dismissal was agreed by the parties, no merits determination on the validity of US9680068B2 was issued at the appellate level. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The appeal ran for 253 days before the agreed dismissal — a relatively short appellate lifespan that suggests the parties reached an accommodation before full briefing or argument concluded. What drove that accommodation, and what — if any — conditions were attached to the withdrawal, is not apparent from the public record. The patent's validity status as established at the proceeding below therefore stands, though the appellate dismissal does not constitute an affirmance on the merits.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 253 days
253 days from filing to dismissal — under one year at appeal level
US9680068B2 — quantum dot films utilizing multi-phase resins
Any company developing, sourcing, or integrating quantum dot films — particularly those using multi-phase or composite resin matrices — should evaluate their exposure to US9680068B2. The patent survived a Federal Circuit-level invalidity challenge, and Nanoco has demonstrated willingness to assert it against a major display manufacturer. R&D teams working on quantum dot backlight units, colour conversion films, or encapsulation architectures for display applications are the primary audience for this FTO assessment.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order records a dismissal entered on the parties' agreement under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with costs to lie where they fall. No substantive analysis of US9680068B2's validity was conducted at the Federal Circuit level. The equal costs order is neutral and does not indicate which party held the stronger position on the merits; it is consistent with a mutually agreed procedural exit rather than any assessment of the underlying invalidity arguments.
Appeal dismissed: what the agreed Federal Circuit exit means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) dismissal: no merits adjudication
Rule 42(b) permits parties to voluntarily dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement. The Federal Circuit entered the dismissal after the parties agreed to withdraw. Crucially, this is a procedural exit — the court issued no ruling on whether US9680068B2 is valid or invalid. The outcome below therefore stands, but without appellate endorsement or rejection on the merits.
Procedural dismissal — no merits rulingNanoco retains its patent without an adverse appellate ruling
As appellee, Nanoco Technologies avoided a Federal Circuit merits ruling that could have invalidated US9680068B2. The patent's enforceability is not diminished by this dismissal — the appellate challenge simply ends. However, because no affirmance was issued, Nanoco cannot cite this proceeding as judicial validation of the patent's validity. The specific terms of the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Patent survives — no appellate invalidity findingSamsung withdraws appeal; future challenge options depend on remaining procedural routes
Samsung's agreed dismissal closes this appellate avenue without a merits win. Having initiated an invalidity/cancellation action, Samsung exits without a Federal Circuit ruling in its favour. Whether Samsung retains any future challenge routes — such as further IPR petitions or district court invalidity defences — depends on estoppel positions and procedural history not fully disclosed in the available record.
Appellate challenge withdrawnQuantum dot display IP landscape: Nanoco's patent remains a live enforcement asset
US9680068B2 covers quantum dot films utilizing multi-phase resins — a materials technology central to next-generation display production. The dismissal leaves the patent intact and potentially enforceable against display manufacturers and component suppliers operating in this space. Companies developing or sourcing quantum dot film technologies should monitor Nanoco's enforcement posture, as the patent has now survived a major appellate challenge without adverse ruling.
Live enforcement risk for display sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Plaintiff | Individual | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — appellant challenging patentability of US9680068B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Defendant | Individual | Nanoco Technologies Ltd. — appellee and holder of US9680068B2 covering quantum dot filmsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the quantum dot display materials space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from Samsung v. Nanoco (22-1847) — covering portfolio activity, filing trends, and white space in quantum dot film technology.
Nanoco's quantum dot patent portfolio beyond US9680068B2
Nanoco Technologies holds a portfolio of patents directed to quantum dot materials, formulations, and manufacturing processes. Understanding the breadth of their filings — particularly in resin-based encapsulation and film architectures — is essential for any company operating in the quantum dot supply chain. Mapping Nanoco's continuation and divisional filings can reveal claim scope evolution and future enforcement risk.
Nanoco portfolio mappingFiling trends in multi-phase resin quantum dot film architectures
The multi-phase resin approach to quantum dot film fabrication represents a specific technical sub-domain within the broader quantum dot display space. Tracking global filing activity in this area — by assignee, jurisdiction, and claim type — can reveal which competitors are investing in adjacent or overlapping formulation strategies and where defensive filing gaps may exist.
QD film filing trendSamsung's quantum dot materials IP strategy post-withdrawal
Samsung is one of the most active filers in the quantum dot display and semiconductor nanocrystal space. Its withdrawal from this Federal Circuit challenge — without a merits ruling — suggests a possible strategic recalibration. Analysing Samsung's recent quantum dot patent filings can indicate whether the company is pursuing design-around approaches, alternative resin systems, or new QD integration architectures that avoid Nanoco's claim scope.
Samsung QD IP activityAdjacent R&D opportunities near multi-phase resin QD film claims
With US9680068B2 directed to a specific multi-phase resin matrix approach, there may be white space in alternative encapsulation chemistries, inorganic matrix systems, or hybrid film architectures that achieve similar optical performance without entering the patent's claim scope. Identifying these gaps can guide R&D investment toward protectable, freedom-to-operate-clear innovation in quantum dot film technology.
QD film white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit appeals in quantum dot and display materials patent cases
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving quantum dot, display film, and semiconductor nanocrystal patents — cases that share procedural and technical parallels with Samsung v. Nanoco (22-1847).
What this case signals for the quantum dot display IP landscape
An agreed Federal Circuit exit in a patentability challenge leaves US9680068B2 standing — with meaningful implications for display technology competitors.
Nanoco's quantum dot patent survives appellate challenge intact
The Federal Circuit dismissed Samsung's appeal without issuing any invalidity ruling. US9680068B2 remains a live, enforceable patent. Display manufacturers and quantum dot film suppliers should treat this patent as an active risk — the most significant appellate threat to it has now been withdrawn without a merits outcome.
Early agreed dismissal suggests a shift in the parties' dispute calculus
The 253-day appeal lifecycle and the agreed Rule 42(b) exit — before any merits ruling — typically suggests the parties' positions changed after the appeal was filed. Whether that reflects a commercial negotiation, a licensing arrangement, or a strategic reassessment is not apparent from the public record. Monitor both parties for licensing activity or downstream litigation in the quantum dot space.
Plaintiff v Defendant — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal on 8 February 2023 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), on the parties' agreement. No merits ruling on the validity of US9680068B2 was issued. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The specific terms of the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The patent at issue is US9680068B2 (application number US14/460008), assigned to Nanoco Technologies Ltd. It covers quantum dot films utilizing multi-phase resins — a materials technology relevant to display manufacturing and colour conversion applications.
A Rule 42(b) dismissal is procedural and does not constitute a ruling on the merits. The Federal Circuit did not affirm or reverse any prior determination on the validity of US9680068B2. The patent remains in force and the invalidity/cancellation proceeding below was not overturned by this appellate dismissal.
The public record does not disclose the reasons the parties agreed to dismiss the appeal under Rule 42(b). The 253-day duration before dismissal suggests the agreement was reached before full appellate briefing or oral argument concluded, but the underlying rationale and any associated terms are not apparent from the available docket.
The dismissal leaves US9680068B2 intact as an enforceable patent. Companies developing or sourcing quantum dot films — particularly those using multi-phase or composite resin matrices — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent's claims. The patent has now survived a major appellate challenge without an adverse ruling, which may strengthen Nanoco's enforcement posture.
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.