Samsung vs. RJ Technology: Lithium Battery Patent Appeal Dismissed

Introduction

In a notable procedural development at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Appeal No. 2025-1824 — pitting Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. against RJ Technology LLC — was voluntarily dismissed by joint stipulation on January 15, 2026. The dismissal, filed just 227 days after the appeal was initiated, centers on US Patent No. 7,749,641 B2, which covers secondary lithium-ion cell and battery protection circuit technology.

While the dismissal itself may appear routine, the strategic circumstances surrounding it carry meaningful implications for lithium-ion battery patent litigation, cross-appeal management, and invalidity/cancellation proceedings at the appellate level. Notably, the order references Apple Inc. as a co-cross-appellant alongside Samsung — a detail that adds significant competitive and commercial weight to what might otherwise seem like a standard patent patentability dispute. For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D leaders operating in the energy storage and consumer electronics space, this case offers instructive lessons about appellate strategy, multi-party coordination, and freedom-to-operate risk management.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case involved US Patent No. 7,749,641 B2 (Application No. US10/491,134), claiming technology directed at secondary lithium-ion cells and batteries, including associated protection circuits, electronic devices, and charging devices. Lithium-ion battery protection circuitry is foundational to consumer electronics, electric vehicles, and energy storage systems — making this patent commercially significant far beyond any single defendant.

The Accused Product(s)

The litigation involves products classified under secondary lithium-ion cell or battery technology and related protection and charging circuitry. Given Samsung’s extensive battery manufacturing and integration operations, the patent’s claims touch core components present in a wide range of consumer and industrial devices.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff (Samsung): Andrew R. Sommer of Greenberg Traurig LLP, a globally recognized Am Law 100 firm with a robust IP litigation practice.

Defendant (RJ Technology): Minghui Yang of Carmichael IP PLLC, a boutique intellectual property firm known for focused patent prosecution and litigation work.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Case No. 2025-1824 was filed on June 2, 2025, at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — the exclusive appellate forum for U.S. patent matters — and closed on January 15, 2026, representing a relatively compact 227-day lifecycle for an appellate patent proceeding.

The dismissal order references a companion proceeding, Appeal No. 2025-1794, which remains active. The response brief in that related appeal was ordered due no later than February 2, 2026, suggesting the substantive legal dispute over patent validity has not been fully resolved — only Samsung’s and Apple’s cross-appeal has been withdrawn.

The involvement of Apple Inc. as a co-cross-appellant in the dismissed appeal — though not listed as a formal party in the case caption — indicates that this dispute likely has roots in a broader inter partes review (IPR) or PTAB invalidity proceeding, where multiple petitioners frequently join forces to challenge a patent’s validity. The voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b)(1) required mutual agreement, with each side bearing its own costs — a provision that signals a negotiated, strategic withdrawal rather than a concession on the merits.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Appeal No. 2025-1824 was dismissed by joint stipulation pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b)(1). No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was granted, and each party bears its own costs. The underlying patentability dispute — categorized as an invalidity/cancellation action — continues in the related Appeal No. 2025-1794.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The verdict cause is identified as patentability, with the specific action classified as an invalidity/cancellation proceeding. This framing strongly suggests the appeal arose from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision — most likely following an inter partes review petition filed by Samsung, Apple, or both challenging the validity of US7749641B2.

In IPR proceedings, technology companies frequently co-petition to distribute costs and strengthen invalidity arguments through combined prior art combinations. The fact that Samsung and Apple coordinated a joint cross-appeal before jointly dismissing it suggests either: (1) the parties reached a licensing or settlement resolution outside the appellate record; (2) the petitioners concluded their invalidity arguments were unlikely to succeed on the specific cross-appeal grounds; or (3) strategic resource allocation favored concentrating efforts on the remaining Appeal No. 2025-1794.

The absence of disclosed damages or settlement terms is consistent with confidential resolution or a tactical retreat from one front of a multi-front dispute.

Legal Significance

The dismissal preserves the status quo on patent validity for US7749641B2 as determined by the lower tribunal — at least with respect to Samsung and Apple’s cross-appeal arguments. With Appeal No. 2025-1794 still pending, the Federal Circuit has yet to issue a definitive ruling on the patent’s validity or scope.

For practitioners, this case illustrates how multi-petitioner IPR strategies at the PTAB can result in complex, multi-appeal Federal Circuit proceedings that require careful coordination and resource management across co-petitioners with potentially divergent commercial interests.

Industry & Competitive Implications

The lithium-ion battery protection circuit space is one of the most heavily contested patent landscapes in consumer electronics and clean energy technology. Patents covering charging management, overcurrent protection, and cell-balancing circuitry are foundational assets that affect smartphones, laptops, electric vehicles, and energy storage systems alike.

The participation of Samsung and Apple as co-challengers signals the commercial stakes: both companies integrate secondary lithium-ion battery systems across hundreds of product SKUs globally. Even a narrow patent claim in this space can create significant licensing exposure or design-change obligations at scale.

The voluntary dismissal also reflects a broader litigation trend in which large technology companies pragmatically reassess appellate posture when the cost-benefit analysis of continued challenge shifts — particularly when companion proceedings may already deliver the invalidity findings sought. For IP licensing entities like RJ Technology, surviving a coordinated Samsung-Apple invalidity challenge — even partially — substantially strengthens licensing leverage with other potential targets in the electronics ecosystem.

Companies operating in battery technology, wearables, IoT devices, and EV charging infrastructure should treat this case as a signal to conduct proactive patent landscape reviews covering protection circuit art dating to the priority period of US7749641B2.