Samsung v. Power2B (23-2122): Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability of Input-System Patent
Samsung Electronics challenged Power2B’s US9946369B2 — a patent covering an input system for controlling electronic devices — at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After 861 days, the Federal Circuit affirmed the patent’s unpatentability, delivering a decisive outcome for Samsung and eliminating the asserted IP right.
Federal Circuit seals Power2B’s patent defeat on input-system claims
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. initiated appellate proceedings against Power2B, Inc. on 7 July 2023 before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case No. 23-2122. The dispute centred on US9946369B2 — filed under application number US15/272314 — which protects an input system for controlling an electronic device, a technology directly relevant to consumer electronics interfaces and touchscreen control architectures.
The Federal Circuit’s order, entered on 14 November 2025, affirmed the underlying patentability determination, confirming that US9946369B2 is unpatentable. Affirmance at this level means the appellate panel found no reversible legal or factual error in the tribunal below, leaving the cancellation of Power2B’s patent intact and fully enforceable as a precedent against any future reassertion of those claims.
At 861 days, the appellate phase was notably extended, suggesting the panel engaged seriously with the technical and legal arguments Power2B raised on appeal. The public record does not disclose whether Power2B filed a petition for rehearing en banc or plans further challenge; absent that, the affirmance is final at the Federal Circuit level and Power2B’s avenue for reinstating the patent is effectively closed unless a Supreme Court certiorari petition is pursued.
Filing to Unpatentable in 861 days
861 days — above the median for a Federal Circuit appeal in a patentability dispute
Federal Circuit affirms: what the unpatentability ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means the lower unpatentability finding stands
When the Federal Circuit issues an AFFIRMED order in a patentability dispute, it confirms that the tribunal below committed no reversible error — whether legal or factual — in cancelling the patent. The appellate court applies a deferential standard to factual findings (substantial evidence) and de novo review to legal conclusions of patentability. Here, neither standard produced a ground to disturb the original ruling.
No reversible error foundPower2B loses US9946369B2 — patent cannot be enforced
For Power2B, affirmance extinguishes US9946369B2 as a live IP asset. The patent is cancelled and cannot be asserted against Samsung or any third party in its current form. Power2B’s only remaining procedural avenue would be a petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court, which is rarely granted in patent validity disputes and carries a very low success rate.
Patent rights extinguishedSamsung secures freedom to operate without licensing risk from this patent
Samsung Electronics and Samsung Electronics America emerge with full freedom to operate across the input-system technology covered by US9946369B2. The affirmance also shields Samsung from any damages exposure tied to this patent going forward. Because the claims are cancelled — not merely found not infringed — no design-around obligation arises, and the risk of Power2B filing a continuation or reissue on the same inventive concept is constrained.
Full FTO confirmedCancelled claims reduce licensing pressure across the input-system sector
Beyond Samsung, cancellation of US9946369B2 benefits any electronics manufacturer whose products incorporate similar input-control architectures. Patent aggregators and NPEs monitoring the electronic-device control space will note that the Federal Circuit found the claims unpatentable — raising the prior-art and obviousness bar for related continuations or family members Power2B may hold. Competitors should audit any Power2B family patents for similar vulnerability.
Sector-wide FTO improvementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Global consumer electronics leader — challenger of US9946369B2 input-system patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Power2B, Inc. | Company | Power2B, Inc. — patent holder asserting input-system control technology claimsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Haber | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas Whilt | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan Ken Yagura | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Fink | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | O’melveney & Myers LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen McBride | Attorney | Counsel for Power2B, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Villegas & Cefo, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Power2B, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order — ‘THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED’ — is unambiguous and final. The court applied substantial evidence review to factual unpatentability findings and de novo review to any underlying legal questions, finding no ground to disturb either. The Basis of Termination recorded as ‘Unpatentable’ confirms the claims of US9946369B2 are cancelled, not merely found not infringed — a materially more severe outcome for Power2B, as it forecloses reassertion against any party.
US9946369B2 — Input System for Controlling an Electronic Device
US9946369B2 (application US15/272314) protects an input system architecture designed to control an electronic device — a broad and commercially significant claim space that intersects touchscreen interfaces, gesture-based controls, and human-machine interaction technology. The application number sequence suggests filing in the mid-2010s, a period of intense innovation and patent activity in touch and input-control systems across consumer electronics, placing this patent squarely in a crowded and heavily litigated prior-art landscape.
For Samsung — one of the world’s largest manufacturers of smartphones, tablets, and display-integrated devices — any asserted patent covering input-system control represents a direct threat to core product lines. Power2B’s assertion likely targeted Samsung’s touchscreen and input architectures. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of unpatentability suggests the claimed input-system invention failed to clear the novelty or non-obviousness bar against prior art, a finding that may affect the viability of related patents Power2B holds in the same technical domain.
Should you run an FTO against US9946369B2 and Power2B’s patent family?
Any company developing or commercialising electronic device input systems — including touchscreen controllers, gesture-recognition modules, remote-input interfaces, or HMI platforms — should assess residual exposure from the Power2B patent family. While US9946369B2 has been cancelled, related continuations, divisionals, or international equivalents may carry overlapping claim scope that has not yet been adjudicated. A targeted FTO now costs a fraction of defending an assertion later.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full Power2B patent family, identify claim overlap with your product architecture, and surface the prior art that contributed to the US9946369B2 cancellation — giving your legal and product teams a clear picture of residual risk before your next design cycle or product launch. Start with the patent family tree and work outward to any live continuation claims.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9946369B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patentability appeals in electronic device input technology
Cases below involve Federal Circuit patentability challenges in electronic device input and control technology — the same court and domain as Samsung v. Power2B, Case 23-2122.
What this case signals for the electronic device input-system IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance in Samsung v. Power2B has clear implications for how input-system patents are challenged, valued, and enforced.
Cancellation via IPR-type challenge is a proven path for large OEMs
Samsung’s success in obtaining an unpatentability ruling — affirmed at the Federal Circuit — illustrates that mounting a rigorous prior-art challenge against input-system patents can eliminate licensing exposure entirely. OEMs facing similar assertions should assess whether IPR or post-grant review offers a stronger position than district court litigation.
Power2B-family patents warrant immediate monitoring by electronics manufacturers
Where one patent in a portfolio is cancelled on unpatentability grounds, related family members often share overlapping claim structures. Electronics and interface-technology companies should run a Freedom-to-Operate analysis against any remaining Power2B patents to determine whether the same prior art that defeated US9946369B2 applies to sibling claims.
Samsung v Power2B — key questions answered
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US9946369B2 on 14 November 2025. The patent, which covered an input system for controlling an electronic device, was cancelled. The affirmance means the underlying patentability ruling was upheld in full, and Power2B’s patent is no longer enforceable.
Power2B held US9946369B2 (application US15/272314), which protects an input system for controlling an electronic device. This patent was the sole patent at issue in the Federal Circuit appeal. The Federal Circuit affirmed its unpatentability, effectively cancelling the patent’s claims.
An affirmance by the Federal Circuit confirms that the lower tribunal’s cancellation of US9946369B2 was free of reversible legal or factual error. The patent’s claims are cancelled and cannot be enforced against Samsung or any third party. Power2B’s only remaining option would be a petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court, which is rarely granted.
The cancellation of US9946369B2 benefits any manufacturer whose products incorporate input-control technology similar to that claimed by Power2B. Because the claims were cancelled on unpatentability grounds — not merely found not infringed — the ruling applies universally, removing this patent as a licensing or litigation threat across the sector. Companies should still audit related Power2B family patents.
Samsung Electronics was represented by Benjamin Haber, Nicholas Whilt, Ryan Ken Yagura, and William Fink of O’Melveny & Myers LLP. Power2B was represented by Stephen McBride of Villegas & Cefo, LLP. The appeal was filed on 7 July 2023 and resolved by affirmance on 14 November 2025, spanning 861 days.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.