SiOnyx v. Samsung: Five Image Sensor Patents, One Joint Dismissal
SiOnyx LLC asserted five patents covering black silicon image sensor technology against Samsung’s ISOCELL-powered Galaxy S23 Ultra and Galaxy Z Flip5 smartphones in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties resolved all claims within 401 days, filing a joint motion to dismiss SiOnyx’s claims with prejudice — a resolution structure consistent with a confidential settlement.
SiOnyx targets Samsung’s ISOCELL Galaxy imaging pipeline
On April 30, 2024, SiOnyx LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting five patents — US10224359B2, US9905599B2, US11721714B2, US9064764B2, and US11069737B2 — against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor Inc. The accused products included Samsung ISOCELL image sensors embedded in the Galaxy S23 Ultra and Galaxy Z Flip5 smartphones.
The case closed on June 5, 2025, after the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss representing that they had ‘resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendants and Defendants’ counterclaims for relief against Plaintiff.’ The Court granted the motion, dismissing SiOnyx’s claims with prejudice and Samsung’s counterclaims without prejudice — a structural split that is standard in patent settlements and forecloses SiOnyx from re-filing the same infringement claims.
Resolution within 401 days — before any claim construction ruling — suggests the parties reached a commercial agreement early in the litigation lifecycle. The asymmetric dismissal terms, with plaintiff claims dismissed with prejudice and defendant counterclaims dismissed without prejudice, are consistent with a licencing or settlement payment, though the specific financial terms remain undisclosed in the public record. SiOnyx’s retention of an independent imaging IP portfolio against a semiconductor giant of Samsung’s scale is commercially notable.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 401 days
401 days — faster than median EDTX patent case to resolution
Joint dismissal with prejudice: what the order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars SiOnyx from re-filing these claims
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. SiOnyx cannot bring the same five patent claims against Samsung on the same accused products again in any US federal court. This is the standard quid pro quo in patent settlements: the accused infringer typically receives this assurance in exchange for any financial consideration paid.
Rule 41 — final on the meritsSiOnyx closes claims with prejudice — consistent with compensation received
Plaintiffs rarely agree to a with-prejudice dismissal without receiving something in return — most commonly a lump-sum licence payment or running royalty. SiOnyx’s willingness to foreclose re-filing suggests it achieved a commercially acceptable resolution. The company retains its patent portfolio and can assert the same patents against other defendants, as the dismissal is Samsung-specific.
Portfolio intact for future enforcementSamsung’s counterclaims survive without prejudice — optionality preserved
Samsung’s invalidity counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Samsung did not relinquish the right to challenge the validity of SiOnyx’s patents in future proceedings — for example, via inter partes review at the USPTO. This preserves Samsung’s defensive optionality if SiOnyx later asserts these patents against other Samsung products or if a related dispute arises.
IPR challenge avenue remains openISOCELL imaging IP now carries a demonstrated enforcement premium
SiOnyx’s ability to bring Samsung to a joint resolution within 401 days — without a claim construction ruling — signals that its image sensor patent portfolio carries credible litigation risk for consumer electronics manufacturers. Competitors sourcing ISOCELL-derived or comparable CMOS image sensor technology should evaluate FTO exposure against SiOnyx’s remaining portfolio, particularly US11721714B2 (filed 2021) and US11069737B2.
FTO risk for CMOS sensor manufacturersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SiOnyx | Individual | Black silicon imaging IP licensor — holder of US10224359B2 and four related sensor patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Global consumer electronics and semiconductor manufacturer; maker of ISOCELL image sensors and Galaxy smartphonesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Massimo Ciccarelli | Attorney | Counsel for SiOnyxSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ciccarelli Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing SiOnyxSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alice Juwon Ahn | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian R. Nester | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Covington & Burling LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order reflects a straightforward grant of a joint motion, with the critical legal distinction embedded in the asymmetric dismissal terms: plaintiff’s claims go with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims go without prejudice. This split is not incidental — it is negotiated. The with-prejudice component extinguishes SiOnyx’s right to re-litigate these specific claims against Samsung, while the without-prejudice component preserves Samsung’s ability to challenge patent validity through post-grant proceedings if future disputes arise.
US10224359B2 and four companion patents — black silicon CMOS image sensors
The five asserted patents — US10224359B2, US9905599B2, US11721714B2, US9064764B2, and US11069737B2 — form a layered portfolio covering black silicon CMOS image sensor technology, with application dates spanning from US13/841120 (2013) through US17/214333 (2021). This continuity indicates an active prosecution strategy across nearly a decade, building a family of claims that tracks both the underlying fabrication science and its commercial implementation in smartphone imaging pipelines.
SiOnyx’s core innovation relates to surface-textured or ‘black silicon’ photodetectors, which offer enhanced photon absorption — particularly in near-infrared wavelengths — compared to conventional CMOS sensors. Samsung’s ISOCELL technology, used in the Galaxy S23 Ultra and Z Flip5, targets the same high-sensitivity imaging market. The commercial stakes are significant: premium smartphone imaging is a multi-billion-dollar competitive differentiator, making any IP overhang on sensor architecture a material business risk for device OEMs and their sensor suppliers.
Should you run an FTO against SiOnyx’s image sensor patent family?
Any company designing, sourcing, or integrating CMOS image sensors with surface-textured silicon, deep-trench isolation, or enhanced near-infrared sensitivity should assess exposure to SiOnyx’s portfolio. The family spans five granted US patents with claims covering both device structure and fabrication methods. The absence of a Markman ruling means claim scope is unresolved, creating broader-than-expected risk for imaging module makers, smartphone OEMs, and automotive camera suppliers.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s sensor architecture against the full SiOnyx patent family — including continuation applications still in prosecution — and flag claim elements that overlap with your technology. Eureka’s citation tree analysis also surfaces related patents and identifies whether Samsung’s undisclosed invalidity arguments have counterparts in the prior art that could be relevant to your own freedom to operate.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10224359B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar CMOS image sensor patent cases in EDTX and related courts
Explore patent infringement actions involving CMOS and black silicon image sensor technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable semiconductor IP forums.
What this case signals for the imaging sensor IP landscape
A pre-claim-construction settlement against Samsung confirms SiOnyx’s patents carry real commercial leverage in the CMOS imaging space.
EDTX venue continues to attract high-value imaging sensor disputes
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred forum for asserting semiconductor and imaging patents against consumer electronics defendants. The 401-day resolution here — without reaching Markman — suggests defendants with exposure will negotiate rather than litigate to trial in this venue.
Pre-Markman resolution limits public prior art record for competitors
Because no claim construction order was issued, there is no public judicial interpretation of SiOnyx’s patent claims. This creates uncertainty for other CMOS image sensor manufacturers: the scope of US10224359B2 and its four companion patents remains judicially untested, elevating FTO risk for the broader imaging supply chain.
SiOnyx v Samsung — key questions answered
SiOnyx asserted five US patents: US10224359B2, US9905599B2, US11721714B2, US9064764B2, and US11069737B2. All relate to black silicon CMOS image sensor technology. The accused products included Samsung ISOCELL image sensors and the Galaxy S23 Ultra and Galaxy Z Flip5 smartphones.
The case was resolved before trial. The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss on the basis that they had resolved all claims. The court dismissed SiOnyx’s claims with prejudice and Samsung’s counterclaims without prejudice. No financial terms were disclosed. Resolution within 401 days — before any claim construction ruling — is consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement agreement.
Dismissal with prejudice means SiOnyx cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Samsung on the same accused products in any US federal court. However, SiOnyx retains its patent portfolio and can enforce the same patents against other defendants. The dismissal is party-specific, not a ruling on patent validity or enforceability.
Samsung’s invalidity and other counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Samsung’s right to challenge SiOnyx’s patents — for example, through inter partes review at the USPTO — if future disputes arise. This asymmetric dismissal structure is a common negotiated outcome in patent settlements, giving the accused infringer a defensive option while the patentee receives finality on its affirmative claims.
The accused products included Samsung ISOCELL image sensors broadly, and specifically the Galaxy S23 Ultra and Galaxy Z Flip5 smartphones, as well as digital imaging sensors used in Samsung mobile phones and tablet computers generally. SiOnyx’s claims targeted the image sensor components within these consumer devices rather than the finished devices alone.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.