Samsung v. Staton Techiya: Federal Circuit Cross-Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Samsung Electronics and Staton Techiya jointly stipulated to voluntary dismissal of Samsung’s cross-appeal at the Federal Circuit under FRAP 42(b), closing Appeal No. 23-2342 after 518 days. The dispute centred on US9124982B2, a patent covering always-on headwear recording technology. The public record is silent on whether any settlement terms accompanied the dismissal.
Federal Circuit cross-appeal exits without a merits ruling on US9124982B2
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively Samsung) filed cross-appeal No. 23-2342 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 30 August 2023, appealing a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) involving US9124982B2. The patent, assigned to Staton Techiya, LLC, covers an always-on headwear recording system — wearable technology designed to continuously capture audio or video. Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP represented Samsung; Devlin Law Firm LLC represented Staton Techiya.
The appeal closed on 29 January 2025 via a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), following Samsung’s notice of non-participation. Because the dismissal basis does not specify whether it was with or without prejudice, the public record is silent on that distinction. No merits decision was issued by the Federal Circuit — the court did not rule on the validity or infringement questions underlying the PTAB appeal.
At 518 days, the case ran toward the longer end of Federal Circuit appeal timelines before resolution, suggesting the parties may have been engaged in parallel negotiations. Samsung’s notice of non-participation filed before the stipulation is consistent with a strategic withdrawal, though whether a settlement, licensing arrangement, or other commercial agreement drove the dismissal cannot be confirmed from publicly available filings. The underlying PTAB proceedings and any district court actions tied to US9124982B2 remain relevant for FTO analysis.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 518 days
518 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit appeal resolution of roughly 12–18 months
Voluntarily dismissed: what FRAP 42(b) means for both parties
FRAP 42(b) voluntary dismissal ends the appeal — not the patent
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) permits parties to dismiss an appeal by filing a signed stipulation. The Federal Circuit accepted the joint stipulation here, closing the cross-appeal without any ruling on the merits of the PTAB decision. This means the underlying PTAB record — and any findings made there — stands undisturbed by this appellate exit. The patent itself, US9124982B2, remains in force unless separately invalidated.
No merits adjudicationThe public record is silent on prejudice — implications differ significantly
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice bars Samsung from re-raising the same arguments; without prejudice would preserve optionality. The filed stipulation does not specify which applies, and FRAP 42(b) does not impose a default rule equivalent to FRCP 41. Practitioners should treat this distinction as unresolved on the public record. If prejudice terms were negotiated, they likely appear in a confidential settlement agreement not publicly filed.
Prejudice terms: unconfirmedSamsung’s non-participation notice preceded the joint stipulation
Samsung filed a notice of non-participation before the joint dismissal stipulation, suggesting it had already opted not to actively litigate the appeal. This sequencing is consistent with a negotiated resolution or a commercial decision to exit rather than pursue the cross-appeal. Whether Samsung secured licensing terms, design-around freedom, or simply de-prioritised this patent family is not disclosed in the public record.
Strategic withdrawal signalledPatent survives — Techiya retains enforcement posture on US9124982B2
With no adverse Federal Circuit ruling, Staton Techiya’s patent remains enforceable. The dismissal without a merits decision means the PTAB record is the last substantive adjudication of the patent’s validity. Any party in the wearable audio/video recording space — particularly headwear or always-on capture device manufacturers — should assess exposure against US9124982B2, which has not been judicially invalidated at the appellate level.
Patent enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Global consumer electronics manufacturer — appellant on US9124982B2 PTAB cross-appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Staton Techiya, LLC | Company | Staton Techiya, LLC — patent assertion entity holding US9124982B2, always-on headwear recordingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ali Reza Sharifahmadian | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David A. Caine | 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 law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Mitchell Shapiro | Attorney | Counsel for Staton Techiya, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy Devlin | Attorney | Counsel for Staton Techiya, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC | Law Firm | Representing Staton Techiya, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit accepted a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal under FRAP 42(b), closing Samsung’s cross-appeal without issuing any opinion on the merits of the underlying PTAB decision. This procedural exit means the appellate court applied no standard of review — neither substantial evidence nor de novo claim construction — and made no findings on validity or claim scope. The PTAB record therefore stands as the operative substantive adjudication. For both parties and third-party observers, the absence of a Federal Circuit merits ruling preserves uncertainty around the enforceability and scope of US9124982B2.
US9124982B2 — Always-On Headwear Recording System
US9124982B2, filed under application number US14/021011, protects an always-on headwear recording system — technology designed to enable continuous or persistent audio and/or video capture from a head-worn device. This falls within the rapidly expanding wearable computing and personal capture space, intersecting with smart earbuds, AR/XR headsets, and action-camera headwear. The patent’s issuance as a B2 grant confirms it has passed USPTO examination, and its survival through PTAB proceedings without Federal Circuit invalidation reinforces its current enforceability.
For the consumer electronics and wearable technology sector, US9124982B2 represents a potentially broad claim position on always-on capture functionality — a feature increasingly central to products ranging from smart glasses to fitness wearables with embedded microphones. Samsung’s involvement in this dispute underscores how seriously major OEMs assess this patent’s reach. Companies launching headwear with continuous recording, noise-cancellation logging, or ambient sound capture should independently evaluate their exposure, particularly given that no invalidating appellate decision exists.
Should your wearable audio product team run an FTO against US9124982B2?
Any R&D or product team developing always-on headwear, smart earbuds, AR glasses, or devices with persistent audio/video capture functionality should treat US9124982B2 as a priority FTO target. The patent has not been judicially invalidated; Samsung’s cross-appeal was dismissed without a merits ruling. That means the claim scope asserted against Samsung at PTAB remains operative, and Staton Techiya retains full enforcement standing. The risk is not theoretical — this patent has already been asserted against one of the world’s largest consumer electronics manufacturers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claims of US9124982B2, surface the full Staton Techiya patent family, identify continuation or divisional applications, and flag claim language that may read on always-on capture, headwear form factors, or persistent recording modes. Eureka also tracks litigation history and PTAB proceedings linked to this patent, giving your legal and engineering teams a consolidated risk picture before product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9124982B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals involving wearable technology patents
Cases involving PTAB-originated appeals at the Federal Circuit over wearable audio and recording technology patents, including PAE enforcement actions against consumer electronics OEMs.
What this case signals for the wearable audio IP landscape
A Samsung cross-appeal exit at the Federal Circuit without a merits ruling leaves US9124982B2 viable — and Staton Techiya’s enforcement options open.
Always-on wearable recording patents remain a live enforcement vector
US9124982B2 has not been invalidated at the appellate level. Any company developing always-on headwear, smart earbuds, AR glasses, or continuous audio-capture wearables should treat this patent as an active risk. The absence of a Federal Circuit merits ruling means challengers lose the benefit of any adverse appellate precedent they might have obtained.
Samsung’s FRAP 42(b) exit is a strategic signal worth monitoring
When a defendant of Samsung’s scale files a non-participation notice and then jointly stipulates to dismiss, it typically signals either a licensing resolution or a deliberate de-prioritisation. Neither confirms freedom to operate for third parties. Companies in the wearable tech space should not infer from Samsung’s exit that the patent is unenforceable — that question remains open.
Samsung v Staton — key questions answered
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. voluntarily dismissed their cross-appeal at the Federal Circuit under FRAP 42(b) via a joint stipulation with Staton Techiya, LLC. The appeal, which arose from a PTAB proceeding involving US9124982B2, closed on 29 January 2025 with no merits ruling issued by the Federal Circuit.
US9124982B2, filed as US application 14/021011, covers an always-on headwear recording system — technology enabling continuous or persistent audio and video capture from head-worn devices. It is relevant to smart earbuds, AR glasses, fitness wearables with ambient recording, and any headwear incorporating persistent capture functionality. The patent has not been invalidated at the Federal Circuit level.
No. A voluntary dismissal under FRAP 42(b) ends the appeal procedurally without any ruling on the merits. The patent remains in force. The PTAB’s underlying decision is the last substantive adjudication of validity. Third parties should not treat Samsung’s exit from this appeal as evidence that the patent is weak or unenforceable.
The public record — specifically the joint stipulation filed as ECF No. 48 — does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. FRAP 42(b) does not automatically impose either condition. Practitioners should treat the prejudice question as unresolved on the public docket. Any applicable terms are likely contained in a confidential agreement not publicly filed.
Companies developing always-on headwear, smart earbuds, or continuous-capture wearables should conduct an FTO analysis against US9124982B2 and monitor Staton Techiya’s broader patent portfolio for continuation or divisional applications. Samsung’s withdrawal does not confer freedom to operate on third parties. The patent assertion entity retains full enforcement standing, and the claim scope has not been narrowed by any Federal Circuit ruling.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.