Samsung v. Staton Techiya: Federal Circuit Dismisses Appeal No. 23-2295
Samsung Electronics challenged Staton Techiya’s US9609424B2 patent covering a method and device for personalized hearing at the Federal Circuit. Appeal No. 23-2295 was dismissed on January 29, 2025 — with each side bearing its own costs — while the companion appeal, No. 23-2335, continues before a merits panel with the USPTO directed to declare whether it will intervene.
Federal Circuit splits consolidated hearing-tech appeal in two
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed Appeal No. 23-2295 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 17, 2023, challenging proceedings related to US9609424B2 — a patent held by Staton Techiya, LLC covering a method and device for personalized hearing. The dispute originated as an infringement action and reached the Federal Circuit as part of what appears to have been a consolidated or parallel set of appeals alongside companion case No. 23-2335.
On January 29, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued an order dismissing Appeal No. 23-2295, with each side bearing its own costs. The court simultaneously restructured the litigation by separating out the companion appeal, No. 23-2335, assigning it a revised official caption and directing Staton Techiya to file a corrected brief omitting those portions that had addressed Samsung’s arguments. Critically, previously filed briefs and the appendix from No. 23-2295 will not be transmitted to the merits panel assigned to No. 23-2335.
The 531-day duration before dismissal of No. 23-2295 suggests the consolidated briefing process was well advanced before the court separated the two appeals. The public record does not disclose the precise procedural trigger for the split, though the order’s direction to the USPTO — requiring it to declare within 30 days whether it will intervene in No. 23-2335 — suggests the surviving appeal involves a patent validity or PTO-facing question of broader significance. The merits of US9609424B2 remain unresolved at this level.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 531 days
531 days from filing to dismissal of this appeal — consistent with Federal Circuit procedural timelines for consolidated patent appeals
Appeal No. 23-2295 dismissed: what the order means for both parties
Procedural dismissal — no merits ruling issued in this appeal
A Federal Circuit dismissal on procedural grounds closes the named appeal without adjudicating the underlying patent dispute on its merits. Here, No. 23-2295 was separated from its companion and dismissed, with the court’s substantive analysis reserved entirely for No. 23-2335. Neither party’s legal position on US9609424B2 has been judicially determined by this order.
No merits adjudicationStaton Techiya: patent survives this appeal, but merits battle continues
For Staton Techiya, dismissal of No. 23-2295 without a merits ruling means US9609424B2 is neither validated nor invalidated at this stage. The surviving appeal, No. 23-2335, will determine the patent’s fate. The court’s instruction that Staton Techiya file a corrected brief signals the merits panel will proceed on a narrower record, potentially focused on the PTO’s position rather than Samsung’s direct challenge.
Patent validity unresolvedSamsung’s arguments in 23-2295 excised from the surviving appeal record
Samsung’s position is notably affected by the order’s direction that previously filed briefs not be transmitted to the merits panel and that Staton Techiya’s corrected brief omit portions addressing Samsung’s arguments. This suggests Samsung’s participation in No. 23-2335 is either curtailed or structured differently, which may limit Samsung’s ability to directly shape the surviving appeal’s outcome.
Reduced role in 23-2335USPTO intervention signal elevates the stakes for personalized hearing IP
The court’s direction to the USPTO to declare whether it will intervene in No. 23-2335 is consistent with appeals involving significant patent validity questions — typically inter partes review or post-grant proceedings. For companies operating in personalized hearing, audio customisation, and earphone/earbud technology, the surviving appeal’s outcome could affect the enforceability of US9609424B2 across the sector.
USPTO intervention possibleFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Global consumer electronics group — challenger of US9609424B2 personalized hearing patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Staton Techiya, LLC | Company | Staton Techiya, LLC — patent assertion entity holding US9609424B2 personalized hearing technologySearch 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’s order dismissing Appeal No. 23-2295 is procedural in nature — it closes this specific appeal without any ruling on the merits of US9609424B2. The accompanying directives are significant: the court separates the two appeals entirely, removes previously filed briefing from the surviving case record, and directs the USPTO to declare its participation within 30 days. This structure is consistent with a case where the agency’s original adjudication — likely an IPR or post-grant proceeding — is the primary subject of the surviving appeal, and Samsung’s direct challenge is treated as a distinct procedural track now terminated.
US9609424B2 — method and device for personalized hearing
US9609424B2 covers a method and device for personalized hearing — a technology domain encompassing audio signal processing, individual hearing profile calibration, and sound customisation delivered through earphones, earbuds, or hearing-adjacent consumer devices. The application number US15/144741 indicates a filing consistent with the mid-2010s wave of intelligent audio personalisation patents. This class of patent typically claims techniques for measuring, storing, and applying individual hearing characteristics to modify audio output in real time.
From a competitive intelligence perspective, US9609424B2 sits at the intersection of consumer hearables, smart earphones, and audiological technology — a sector where Samsung, Apple, Sony, and a growing number of hearable startups have substantial product exposure. A patent asserting claims over personalised hearing methods could, if found valid and infringed, affect firmware-level audio equalisation features embedded in widely distributed earphone and smartphone products. The USPTO’s potential intervention in No. 23-2335 suggests the claim scope or validity of this patent carries significance beyond the Samsung dispute alone.
Should you run an FTO against US9609424B2?
Any R&D team or product manager developing personalized hearing features — including adaptive equalisation, hearing profile onboarding, in-ear audio adjustment, or sound customisation in earbuds, headphones, or hearing assistance devices — should treat US9609424B2 as a live FTO concern. The patent remains enforceable while Appeal No. 23-2335 proceeds, and a USPTO decision to intervene could extend the timeline of uncertainty significantly. Early FTO clearance reduces litigation exposure before product launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US9609424B2’s claim language against your product’s technical architecture, identify potential design-around opportunities, and surface the prosecution history and claim amendments most relevant to your feature set. For teams working on personalised audio or hearable technology, Eureka can also identify related patents in Staton Techiya’s portfolio and flag similar assertion patterns to provide a complete picture of enforcement risk in this domain.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9609424B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals involving personalized hearing and audio patents
Federal Circuit patent appeals involving audio processing, hearing personalisation, and consumer hearable technology — cases comparable to Samsung v. Staton Techiya No. 23-2295.
What this case signals for the personalized hearing IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s procedural restructuring of this appeal signals a patent validity contest with USPTO-level implications for audio personalisation technology.
USPTO intervention in 23-2335 could set sector-wide validity precedent
When the Federal Circuit directs the USPTO to declare whether it will intervene, it typically signals a question of patent validity or claim scope with implications beyond the immediate parties. Companies in the personalized audio and hearing technology space should monitor No. 23-2335 for any ruling that could affect the validity baseline for similar patents in this domain.
Samsung’s excised arguments create a narrowed merits record
The order’s instruction to remove Samsung’s arguments from the surviving appeal record is procedurally unusual and suggests the remaining appeal may be structured as an agency-facing validity challenge rather than a pure inter-party infringement dispute. IP teams at competitors should assess whether this restructuring affects how US9609424B2 can be challenged in future proceedings.
Samsung v Staton — key questions answered
Appeal No. 23-2295 was dismissed by the Federal Circuit on January 29, 2025, with each side bearing its own costs. The dismissal was procedural — no merits ruling was issued on US9609424B2. A companion appeal, No. 23-2335, continues before a Federal Circuit merits panel with the USPTO directed to declare whether it will intervene.
The dismissal of No. 23-2295 has no effect on the validity or enforceability of US9609424B2. The patent was neither invalidated nor confirmed by this order. All substantive questions about the patent’s validity and scope are reserved for the surviving companion appeal, No. 23-2335.
The USPTO is typically invited to intervene in Federal Circuit appeals where the patent validity question at issue arose from a USPTO proceeding — most commonly an inter partes review or ex parte reexamination. The court’s direction suggests No. 23-2335 may involve a challenge to a PTO ruling on US9609424B2, making the agency’s participation procedurally relevant.
US9609424B2, filed under application number US15/144741, covers a method and device for personalized hearing. The patent addresses audio signal processing techniques that customise sound output based on individual hearing profiles — technology relevant to consumer earbuds, smart headphones, hearing assistance devices, and adaptive audio features in smartphones.
The Federal Circuit’s order directed Staton Techiya to file a corrected brief omitting portions addressing Samsung’s arguments, and specified that previously filed briefs would not be transmitted to the merits panel. This procedural separation suggests the surviving appeal is framed primarily as a challenge to a USPTO or agency-level ruling rather than a direct inter-party infringement dispute, with Samsung’s role potentially curtailed or restructured in No. 23-2335.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.