Samsung v. Resonant Systems: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed in 268 Days
Samsung Electronics challenged the patentability of Resonant Systems’ US9941830B2 — covering linear and linear-resonant vibration modules — before the Federal Circuit. The parties jointly agreed to dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs, leaving the underlying patent status as resolved at the prior tribunal level.
A haptic patent appeal ends by mutual agreement at the Federal Circuit
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. filed this appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 17 March 2025, docketed as Case No. 25-1550. The dispute centred on the patentability of US9941830B2 — assigned to Resonant Systems, Inc. and directed to linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules, a technology core to haptic feedback in consumer electronics. The appeal arose from an invalidity or cancellation action, suggesting the underlying contest played out at an inter partes review or similar post-grant proceeding before reaching the Federal Circuit.
The case closed on 10 December 2025 when the Federal Circuit entered an order dismissing the proceedings under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), the rule governing voluntary dismissal of appeals by stipulation of the parties. The order specified that each side shall bear its own costs. Because the dismissal was voluntary with no merits determination recorded, the Federal Circuit issued no ruling on whether the patent claims are valid or invalid. The public record is silent on whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice to refiling.
At 268 days, the case resolved relatively quickly for a Federal Circuit appeal, consistent with settlement or a negotiated resolution reached before full briefing concluded. What drove the agreement — licensing terms, a commercial deal, or a strategic withdrawal — is not disclosed in the public record. Competitors and licensees in the haptic actuator space should note that the patent’s enforceability was not adjudicated at this appellate level, meaning US9941830B2 retains whatever standing it held coming out of the lower proceeding.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 268 days
268 days — resolved before full Federal Circuit briefing typically concludes
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Federal Circuit order means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): appeal ends by party agreement, not court ruling
Rule 42(b) allows parties to a Federal Circuit appeal to stipulate to dismissal at any time. The court does not evaluate the merits — it simply enters the agreed order. This means no precedent is set, no claim construction issued, and no validity determination made. The underlying tribunal’s decision, whatever it held, is left undisturbed by this Federal Circuit proceeding.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) can be with or without prejudice to future challenges, but the filed order does not specify. This distinction matters: a with-prejudice dismissal bars Samsung from relitigating the same invalidity grounds, while a without-prejudice dismissal leaves that door open. Because the record is silent, neither outcome can be asserted with confidence — practitioners should treat this as an unresolved procedural question.
Prejudice status unknownAppellant withdraws: strategic retreat or resolved dispute?
Samsung, as the appellant, drove or co-agreed to the dismissal. This typically signals either a commercial resolution with Resonant Systems — such as a licence or cross-licence — or a strategic decision that continued litigation no longer served Samsung’s interests. The absence of a cost award against Samsung suggests the withdrawal was mutually acceptable rather than coerced.
Likely commercial resolutionPatent survives Federal Circuit challenge without adverse ruling
Resonant Systems exits the Federal Circuit proceeding without a negative validity ruling against its patent. US9941830B2 retains whatever scope and enforceability it held at the conclusion of the lower proceeding. However, the lack of a Federal Circuit affirmance means the patent has not gained additional appellate endorsement — its strength in future enforcement actions depends on the underlying tribunal’s record.
Patent status unchangedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Global consumer electronics manufacturer — appellant challenging validity of US9941830B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC. | Company | Resonant Systems, Inc. — developer and patent holder in linear-resonant vibration module 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 Federal Circuit’s order is purely procedural: the court entered dismissal by stipulation under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with no review of the merits of the patentability challenge. The cost-neutrality clause — each side bearing its own costs — suggests a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral withdrawal, consistent with a settlement or commercial resolution reached off the record. No claim construction, no validity ruling, and no appellate precedent emerges from this disposition. The underlying patentability determination from the lower tribunal therefore stands as the operative record for US9941830B2.
US9941830B2 — linear and linear-resonant vibration module technology
US9941830B2, filed under application number US15/181249, protects linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules (LRAs) — the actuator technology responsible for precision haptic feedback in smartphones, wearables, and other consumer electronics. LRA technology enables controlled, frequency-tuned vibration responses that are increasingly preferred over eccentric rotating mass (ERM) motors for their accuracy and energy efficiency. The patent is assigned to Resonant Systems, Inc., a company focused on vibration actuation IP.
In a market where haptic feedback quality is a competitive differentiator — particularly for flagship smartphones and gaming peripherals — control over core LRA actuator patents represents meaningful leverage. Resonant Systems’ willingness to pursue patentability challenges through post-grant proceedings and into the Federal Circuit suggests active enforcement intent. For OEMs and component suppliers integrating LRA modules, US9941830B2 warrants close attention: the patent has now survived a Federal Circuit appeal cycle without being invalidated, reinforcing its potential enforceability.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US9941830B2?
Any R&D or product team designing, sourcing, or integrating linear-resonant vibration actuators into consumer electronics, wearables, gaming devices, or automotive haptic interfaces should treat US9941830B2 as a live risk. The patent was asserted in a patentability challenge initiated by one of the world’s largest consumer electronics manufacturers — and survived. That alone signals that the claims have withstood scrutiny at a significant level of adversarial testing.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claims of US9941830B2 against your product specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and surface related family members or continuation applications that may extend the patent’s reach. Given the voluntary dismissal — which left no Federal Circuit claim construction on record — understanding the operative claim boundaries from the lower proceeding is especially important before product launch or component sourcing decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9941830B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit haptic and vibration module patent appeals
Cases involving patentability challenges to haptic actuator and vibration module patents at the Federal Circuit, where OEMs contest post-grant rulings on LRA and related technologies.
What this case signals for the haptic actuator IP landscape
A voluntary Federal Circuit dismissal in a patentability dispute over vibration modules is rarely a clean ending — it suggests an off-record resolution worth monitoring.
Voluntary Federal Circuit dismissals often mask licensing activity
When a major OEM like Samsung drops a patentability appeal without a merits ruling, the most common explanation is a negotiated licence or settlement. Competitors in the haptic module space should watch for downstream licensing activity by Resonant Systems — US9941830B2 may now be actively monetised against other manufacturers.
US9941830B2 faces no Federal Circuit invalidity ruling — enforce risk remains
Because the appeal was dismissed voluntarily, no appellate court has ruled on the validity of US9941830B2. Any company currently designing or shipping linear-resonant vibration modules should independently assess FTO exposure — the patent’s claims remain intact and potentially asserted against new targets.
Samsung v RESONANT — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal was voluntarily dismissed by stipulation of both parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 10 December 2025. No merits ruling was issued. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. The patentability of US9941830B2 was not adjudicated at the appellate level.
US9941830B2, filed as US15/181249 and assigned to Resonant Systems, Inc., covers linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules — actuator technology central to haptic feedback in consumer electronics. Samsung, as a major manufacturer of devices incorporating LRA technology, initiated a patentability/invalidity challenge, likely through inter partes review, before appealing to the Federal Circuit.
The voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) means the Federal Circuit issued no invalidity ruling against US9941830B2. The patent retains whatever validity status it held at the conclusion of the underlying proceeding. It was not invalidated at this appellate stage, and no Federal Circuit claim construction limits its scope.
Rule 42(b) allows parties to stipulate to dismiss an appeal without a merits decision. The order in this case does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. If without prejudice, Samsung could potentially revisit invalidity arguments in another forum; if with prejudice, those specific grounds may be foreclosed. The public record does not clarify which applies.
Samsung Electronics was represented by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (also listed as Arnold & Porter LLP), with attorneys Ali Reza Sharifahmadian, Jeffrey Miller, and JinSuk Park. Resonant Systems was represented by Russ August & Kabat LLP, with attorneys including Reza Mirzaie, Christian Conkle, Kristopher Davis, Neil Rubin, Paul Anthony Kroeger, and Qi Tong.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.