Slyde Analytics v. Samsung: Four Smartwatch Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice After 644 Days
Slyde Analytics LLC asserted four patents covering smartwatch touch-screen displays and power-mode switching against Samsung Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice after 644 days, with each side bearing its own costs — signalling a likely confidential resolution.
Smartwatch Patent Battle Ends in Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice
Slyde Analytics LLC filed suit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on 28 February 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of four patents: US9651922B2, US8588033B2, US10198085B2, and US9804678B2. The patents collectively cover core smartwatch technologies including methods for switching a wristwatch between power modes, touch-screen display interfaces, and electronic display systems for wearable devices.
On 3 December 2024 — 644 days after filing — the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), representing that the case had been ‘resolved’ and requesting dismissal with prejudice. The court accepted the stipulation, dismissed all claims and causes of action with prejudice, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes Slyde’s right to re-file these same claims against Samsung.
The 644-day duration and the parties’ characterisation of the case as ‘resolved’ strongly suggests a confidential licence or settlement agreement was reached, though the public record is silent on financial terms. The mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a contested adjudication. What remains unknown is whether Slyde retained any ongoing royalty stream from Samsung or simply agreed to walk away — a distinction material to any competitor monitoring Slyde’s enforcement posture.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 644 days
644 days — above the E.D. Texas median for patent cases resolved pre-trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): Voluntary dismissal by joint stipulation
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires the written consent of all parties and carries immediate legal effect without court order. Crucially, dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final adjudication on the merits — Slyde Analytics cannot re-file the same claims against Samsung on these four patents in any federal court. The ‘resolved’ language in the stipulation strongly implies a private settlement agreement underpins the dismissal.
Binding, non-refiling barSlyde’s claims are extinguished — but a licence may persist privately
The with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Slyde Analytics from reasserting these four smartwatch patents against Samsung. However, the parties’ statement that the case was ‘resolved’ is consistent with a paid licence or lump-sum settlement behind a confidentiality agreement. Slyde’s enforcement rights against other defendants — including rival smartwatch manufacturers — remain fully intact, as the dismissal binds only the named parties.
Samsung ring-fenced; others exposedSamsung secures permanent peace on these four patents
Samsung Electronics and Samsung Electronics America obtain absolute finality: Slyde cannot re-litigate infringement of US9651922B2, US8588033B2, US10198085B2, or US9804678B2 against them. The own-costs order avoids any fee-shifting exposure under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Whether Samsung secured a covenant not to sue on related patents, or merely a licence to the four asserted patents, is unknown from the public record.
Permanent bar on re-litigationOther smartwatch makers remain at risk from Slyde’s portfolio
Slyde’s four patents cover foundational smartwatch functions — power-mode switching and touch-screen display — that are widely implemented across the wearables market. The confidential resolution with Samsung suggests Slyde may have established a licensing benchmark. Companies such as Apple, Google/Fitbit, Garmin, and other wearable-device makers should treat these patents as live enforcement risks and conduct FTO analysis accordingly.
Wearables sector-wide riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Slyde Analytics, LLC | Company | Smartwatch patent licensing entity — holder of US9651922B2 and three related wearable-tech patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — global consumer electronics and smartwatch manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Daniel Ostling | Attorney | Counsel for Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer Leigh Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Andrew Rubino | Attorney | Counsel for Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justine Minseon Park | Attorney | Counsel for Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Mondelli , III | Attorney | Counsel for Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (Rye) | Law Firm | Representing Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McKool Smith PC (Marshall) | Law Firm | Representing Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rubino Ip | Law Firm | Representing Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rubino Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Slyde Analytics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Abigail Grace McFee | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bradley M. Berg | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cameron William Westin | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffery Derek Baxter | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Liang | 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 counsel | Nicholas J. Whilt | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan K. Yagura | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sorin Zaharia | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy S. Durst | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith 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 ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers – San Francisco | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers LLP (LA) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers LLP (Newport Beach, CA) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order closely tracks the language of the joint stipulation, confirming a consent-based dismissal with no judicial merits ruling. The phrase ‘the above-captioned case has been resolved’ — originating from the parties, not the court — is the operative signal: it implies a private agreement rather than an abandonment of claims. The with-prejudice designation carries full res judicata effect, permanently foreclosing re-litigation of all four asserted patents against the Samsung entities named. The own-costs order, standard in stipulated dismissals, provides no signal on which party held the stronger litigation position.
US9651922B2 — Smartwatch power-mode switching method and circuit
US9651922B2 (App. No. 13/334823) claims a method and circuit for switching a wristwatch between a first and second power mode — core functionality embedded in virtually every modern smartwatch. The portfolio extends across US8588033B2 (touch-screen display methods), US10198085B2 (electronic display for wristwatches), and US9804678B2 (wristwatch electronic display architecture). Together, the four patents span the interaction layer and power management layer of wearable computing devices, representing early-priority coverage of foundational smartwatch features.
The strategic value of this portfolio lies in its breadth across two independently monetisable functional layers: power management and display interaction. Both are universally implemented in smartwatches, fitness trackers, and hybrid wearables. The patents’ application dates predate the mass commercialisation of smartwatches, potentially giving claim constructions broad scope against modern implementations. Any wearables manufacturer shipping products in the US market should treat these four patents as material enforcement risks, particularly given Slyde’s demonstrated willingness to litigate against a top-tier defendant.
Should you run an FTO analysis against Slyde Analytics’ smartwatch patent portfolio?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or sells smartwatches, fitness trackers, or any wrist-worn wearable device with touch-screen display or power-mode switching functionality in the US market, these four patents are directly relevant to your FTO obligations. The resolution with Samsung does not transfer any freedom-to-operate benefit to other market participants — each company must independently assess its exposure to US9651922B2, US8588033B2, US10198085B2, and US9804678B2.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s power-management and display-interaction feature set against the claim scope of all four Slyde patents, identify relevant prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and flag any continuation or divisional applications that could extend the portfolio’s enforcement life. With a confidential resolution already established against Samsung, acting before a demand letter arrives is significantly more cost-effective than defending a new assertion in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9651922B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar smartwatch and wearables patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related NPE patent infringement actions involving smartwatch display and power-management technology litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the smartwatch and wearables IP landscape
A multi-patent assertion against Samsung in E.D. Texas, ending in a confidential resolution, carries clear signals for the broader wearables IP market.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for wearables patent assertions
Slyde’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with the court’s reputation for plaintiff-friendly scheduling and jury pools. Companies selling smartwatches in the US market should assume continued exposure to NPE assertions in this jurisdiction, particularly for patents covering core wearable-device functions like display and power management.
Four-patent assertions raise claim scope and invalidity complexity
Asserting four patents simultaneously — spanning power-mode switching, touch-screen display, and electronic display architecture — forces defendants to mount parallel invalidity and non-infringement defences. The 644-day duration before resolution suggests Samsung required substantial litigation preparation before settlement terms were acceptable, a dynamic that increases defendant cost exposure in multi-patent NPE cases.
Slyde v Samsung — key questions answered
Slyde Analytics asserted four patents: US9651922B2 (power-mode switching method and circuit for smartwatches), US8588033B2 (wristwatch touch-screen display method), US10198085B2 (wristwatch electronic display), and US9804678B2 (wristwatch electronic display architecture). All four relate to core smartwatch display and power-management functionality.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final, binding termination of the litigation. It carries res judicata effect, meaning Slyde Analytics is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on these four patents in any US federal court.
The parties’ joint stipulation stated the case had been ‘resolved,’ which is consistent with a confidential settlement or licence agreement. However, the public record contains no financial terms, royalty rates, or licence scope. The with-prejudice dismissal and own-costs order are the only publicly available outcomes.
No. A dismissal with prejudice binds only the named parties — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Slyde Analytics retains full enforcement rights against all other companies, including Apple, Garmin, Fitbit/Google, and other smartwatch or wearable-device manufacturers who have not separately licensed the portfolio.
The Eastern District of Texas is a frequently selected venue for NPE patent assertions due to its historically plaintiff-friendly scheduling orders, experienced patent juries, and established case management procedures. Samsung maintains a commercial presence in the district through product sales, satisfying venue requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) as interpreted post-TC Heartland.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.