Samsung v. Resonant Systems (25-1547): Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Samsung Electronics challenged the patentability of Resonant Systems’ US9369081B2, covering linear-resonant vibration modules, before the Federal Circuit. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed by agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs — closing the appellate chapter after 268 days.
Samsung’s Federal Circuit challenge to vibration patent ends by agreement
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed this appeal (Case No. 25-1547) on 17 March 2025 before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, challenging a patentability determination relating to US9369081B2, held by Resonant Systems, Inc. The patent covers linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules — technology relevant to haptic feedback systems used across consumer electronics. Samsung was represented by Arnold & Porter, while Resonant Systems retained Russ August & Kabat LLP.
The appeal was closed on 10 December 2025 by voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), following agreement between the parties. The court ordered that each side bear its own costs. The basis of termination is recorded as voluntary dismissal, but the public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice — a distinction that carries significant consequences for any future challenge to the same patent claims.
The 268-day duration suggests the parties reached their agreement relatively early in the appellate process, possibly before full merits briefing was complete — consistent with a negotiated resolution or strategic withdrawal. What drove the agreement — whether a licensing arrangement, a commercial settlement, or a tactical decision — is not disclosed in the public record. The absence of a merits ruling means the patentability of US9369081B2 was not adjudicated at this appellate stage.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 268 days
268 days — resolved before full appellate briefing cycles typically conclude
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Federal Circuit order means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) dismissal: no merits ruling issued
A dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) is a procedural termination by agreement — the Federal Circuit issued no ruling on the underlying patentability question. The court did not affirm, reverse, or vacate the decision below. This means the prior patentability determination stands as the last substantive ruling on record, but no appellate precedent was created by this proceeding.
Procedural — no merits adjudicationThe public record is silent on prejudice — the distinction matters
A dismissal with prejudice would bar Samsung from relitigating the same patentability grounds. A dismissal without prejudice could preserve that option. The order here does not specify which applies. Under Rule 42(b), terms are set by the parties’ agreement or court order. Because the public docket does not clarify this, practitioners should treat the preclusive effect as an open question requiring further due diligence before drawing conclusions about Samsung’s future challenge rights.
Prejudice status: not publicly specifiedResonant Systems retains US9369081B2 without appellate invalidation
With no merits ruling entered, Resonant Systems’ US9369081B2 survives this appellate challenge intact. The patent’s enforceability is neither confirmed nor weakened by the Federal Circuit’s involvement in this proceeding. Resonant Systems also avoids an adverse appellate ruling, which could have strengthened Samsung’s position. The own-costs order means Resonant Systems absorbs its own appellate legal spend — no fee award was made in its favour.
Patent survives — no invalidation rulingUnresolved patentability leaves market uncertainty for haptic module makers
Because the Federal Circuit did not rule on patentability, US9369081B2 remains a live enforcement asset in the linear-resonant vibration module space. Other manufacturers developing or sourcing haptic feedback components should note that the validity of this patent was never conclusively adjudicated in this proceeding. A negotiated resolution between Samsung and Resonant Systems may suggest commercial arrangements are possible — but the patent’s scope remains untested at the appellate level.
Patent enforceability remains openFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Global consumer electronics manufacturer — appellant challenging patentability of US9369081B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC. | Company | Resonant Systems, Inc. — developer and patent holder in linear-resonant vibration technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ali Reza Sharifahmadian | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | JinSuk Park | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Arnold & Porter LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christian Conkle | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kristopher Davis | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil Rubin | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul Anthony Kroeger | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Qi Tong | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Reza Mirzaie | Attorney | Counsel for RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order records a stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with each party bearing its own costs — a purely procedural termination entered by agreement. No merits ruling was issued; the Federal Circuit applied no standard of review to the underlying patentability determination. The own-costs provision is neutral, neither rewarding nor penalising either party. The absence of a prejudice designation in the public record means the preclusive effect on future invalidity proceedings involving US9369081B2 cannot be determined from the docket alone.
US9369081B2 — Linear and Linear-Resonant Vibration Module Technology
US9369081B2 (application number US14/469210) is assigned to Resonant Systems, Inc. and covers linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules — core components in haptic feedback systems used in smartphones, wearables, game controllers, and other consumer electronic devices. The patent addresses the engineering of resonant actuator assemblies that produce precise, controlled vibration output, a capability central to modern touch-feedback user interfaces. The underlying application was filed through a standard USPTO utility patent track.
Linear-resonant vibration actuators represent a technically demanding segment of haptic hardware, with design choices directly affecting tactile response quality, power consumption, and device form factor. For major OEMs like Samsung, control over or freedom to operate around such patents is commercially critical. The fact that Samsung pursued a Federal Circuit-level patentability challenge suggests the claims of US9369081B2 were viewed as potentially covering commercially deployed technology — making this patent strategically relevant for any company active in the haptic module supply chain.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9369081B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or integrating linear-resonant vibration modules into consumer electronics — including smartphones, wearables, AR/VR controllers, or automotive haptic interfaces — should assess freedom to operate against US9369081B2. The fact that Samsung, one of the world’s largest consumer electronics OEMs, challenged the patentability of this patent signals that its claims are broad enough to attract serious commercial attention. The patent survived this Federal Circuit appeal without any claim narrowing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9369081B2 against your product specifications, surface related prior art that was or was not considered during prosecution, and identify design-around pathways. Eureka also tracks the patent’s litigation and inter partes review history in real time — so if Samsung or another party files a new invalidity challenge, your team is alerted before it affects your IP risk posture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9369081B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in haptic and vibration module patent disputes
Cases involving patentability challenges to haptic and vibration technology patents before the Federal Circuit, including voluntary dismissals and invalidity proceedings.
What this case signals for the haptic technology IP landscape
A voluntarily dismissed Federal Circuit appeal leaves patentability unresolved — and creates strategic uncertainty for competitors in the linear vibration module space.
No merits ruling means US9369081B2 is still a live enforcement risk
The Federal Circuit’s dismissal under Rule 42(b) created no precedent and issued no patentability verdict. Any company designing or sourcing linear-resonant vibration modules should treat US9369081B2 as an active IP risk requiring FTO analysis. The patent’s claim scope was not narrowed or invalidated by this appeal.
Early appellate withdrawal often signals a negotiated commercial arrangement
The 268-day timeline and own-costs order are consistent with a settlement or licensing agreement reached before full briefing. In Federal Circuit appeals involving invalidity challenges, early voluntary dismissal frequently reflects a cross-licensing or coexistence deal rather than a unilateral concession — though the public record does not confirm this here.
Samsung v RESONANT — key questions answered
Samsung Electronics filed a Federal Circuit appeal (No. 25-1547) challenging the patentability of Resonant Systems’ US9369081B2, covering linear-resonant vibration modules. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed by agreement under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 10 December 2025, with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued by the Federal Circuit.
A Rule 42(b) dismissal terminates the appeal by agreement without any merits adjudication. Whether it precludes future invalidity challenges depends on whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice — a distinction the public record in this case does not clarify. Practitioners should conduct further due diligence before concluding that Samsung’s future IPR or district court challenge rights are extinguished.
Yes, US9369081B2 remains valid on its face. The Federal Circuit issued no ruling on patentability, meaning no claims were cancelled or narrowed by this proceeding. The patent’s enforceability was neither confirmed nor undermined at the appellate level. It continues to represent an active IP risk for companies operating in the linear vibration module space.
US9369081B2 covers linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules — the actuator components that produce haptic feedback in smartphones, wearables, and similar devices. These components are critical to user experience quality and are integral to high-volume consumer electronics supply chains. Samsung’s Federal Circuit challenge suggests the patent’s claims were viewed as commercially significant to major OEM production.
The order that each side bear its own costs is a neutral cost arrangement typical of stipulated dismissals where the parties have negotiated a resolution. It does not indicate a winner or loser on the merits, and no fee-shifting was applied. This outcome is consistent with a commercial settlement, licensing agreement, or strategic withdrawal — though the precise basis is not disclosed in the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.