SUNY, UConn & WPI v. Samsung: 9-Patent Wearable ECG & AFib Dispute Settled
Three research universities jointly sued Samsung Electronics and three affiliates over nine patents covering atrial fibrillation detection, ECG signal processing, and photoplethysmography noise removal. Filed in the Eastern District of Texas in April 2023, the case resolved by settlement and was dismissed with prejudice after 788 days — with each side bearing its own costs.
University IP Consortium Takes Samsung to Court Over Wearable Health Patents
Filed on 3 April 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas, this action pitted a consortium of three academic institutions — The Research Foundation for the State University of New York, the University of Connecticut, and Worcester Polytechnic Institute — against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and three U.S. affiliates. The plaintiffs asserted nine issued U.S. patents spanning atrial fibrillation detection, ECG and PPG signal processing, motion-artifact removal, and mobile-device physiological monitoring — core capabilities embedded in Samsung’s Galaxy Watch and related wearable product lines.
The case closed on 30 May 2025 via a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice, indicating the parties reached a confidential settlement. Dismissal with prejudice is legally significant: neither plaintiff may re-assert these nine patents against Samsung on the same claims in future proceedings. The court also denied all pending motions as moot and directed each side to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses — suggesting the settlement terms were balanced enough that neither party sought cost-shifting.
The 788-day duration suggests the case survived early motion practice, discovery, and likely claim construction before settling — consistent with a negotiated licensing outcome rather than an early capitulation. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and with-prejudice dismissal are hallmarks of a structured royalty deal or cross-licence, though the financial terms remain undisclosed. What is unknown from the public record is the royalty rate, any licence duration, and whether the settlement extends to future Samsung wearable generations.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 788 days
788 days — longer than the median E.D. Tex. patent case lifecycle of ~600 days
Settled with prejudice: what the joint dismissal means for both sides
Dismissal with prejudice ends all claims permanently
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) operates as a final adjudication on the merits. The plaintiffs — SUNY, UConn, and WPI — cannot re-file these same patent claims against Samsung or its named affiliates in any future proceeding. The joint motion, filed as Dkt. No. 229, confirms both sides consented, which is the defining indicator of a negotiated settlement rather than a unilateral surrender.
Permanent bar on re-filingUniversities secured a resolution — but terms stay confidential
The three-university consortium invested substantial litigation resources over 788 days, engaging at least nine law firms. A with-prejudice settlement at this stage — past likely claim construction — typically signals that the patent holder secured meaningful value, potentially a licensing royalty or lump-sum payment. The permanent dismissal bars future assertion of these specific patents against Samsung, which universities must weigh against any financial recovery achieved.
Likely royalty or lump-sum dealSamsung resolves nine-patent exposure; cost-bearing split suggests parity
Samsung and its three U.S. affiliates avoided a jury verdict on nine patents covering technology central to Galaxy Watch’s health features. The mutual cost-bearing order — each side pays its own fees — is consistent with a settlement in which Samsung made a payment without admitting liability. Samsung retains no invalidity finding it could use to clear these patents from the landscape, as no court ruled on their merits.
No invalidity finding obtainedWearable health IP remains a live enforcement risk for the sector
The universities still hold these nine patents and can enforce them against any other wearable manufacturer not covered by this settlement. Apple, Fitbit/Google, and Garmin all deploy overlapping ECG, AFib detection, and PPG artifact-removal capabilities. This settlement, without any invalidity ruling, preserves the patents’ enforceability at full strength — making FTO analysis against this portfolio a priority for any company shipping biometric wearables.
Patents remain enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | The Research Foundation for the State University of New York | Individual | Academic IP consortium — holders of 9 wearable cardiac monitoring patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Worcester Polytechnic Institute | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | University of Connecticut | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics and three U.S. affiliates — global wearable device manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cedric Tan | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chiara Michele Carni | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christina M. Juliano | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Reed Clayton | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Claire Abernathy Henry | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Clifford Chad Henson | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Emilio Francis Grillo , I | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jinling Wang | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph J. Gribbin | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin F. Shaw | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lowell D Jacobson | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lynn Ann Lehnert | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael A. Siem | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Joseph Barresi | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard Charles Weinblatt | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stamatios Stamoulis | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Devlin | Attorney | Counsel for The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Armstrong Teasdale LLP | Law Firm | Representing The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Barclay Damon LLP | Law Firm | Representing The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC | Law Firm | Representing The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington) | Law Firm | Representing The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Goldberg Segalla LLP | Law Firm | Representing The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Harness Ip | Law Firm | Representing The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC | Law Firm | Representing The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Devlin Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing The Research Foundation for the State University of New YorkSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander Harding | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander M. Boyer | 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 | Andrew William Stinson | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin R. Schlesinger | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles H. Suh | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher T. Blackford | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel G Chung | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Alan Lebby , Jr | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Frank A. DeCosta , III | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gerald F. Ivey | 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 A. Cerulli | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Parmanand K. Sharma | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shawn S. Chang | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Reston) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan, LLP (Washington DC) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP – Atlanta | 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 | Ramey & Flock, PC | 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 dismissal order — granting the joint motion in full, dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, and denying all pending motions as moot — is procedurally clean and leaves no legal question open for either party. The phrase ‘representing that the case has settled’ confirms a private agreement underlies the dismissal. The mutual cost-bearing direction, rather than an award to either side, suggests the settlement was not framed as a capitulation. No claim construction ruling, infringement finding, or validity determination was issued, meaning the nine patents carry no litigation history that would affect their enforceability against third parties.
US9713428B2 — Wearable Cardiac & Biosignal Monitoring Patent Portfolio
The nine asserted patents collectively cover a tightly integrated wearable health-monitoring technology stack: real-time atrial fibrillation detection (US9713428B2), ECG-based heart rate sensing (US8417326B2), motion-artifact removal from biomedical signals (US9408576B2, US10278647B2, US10285601B2), PPG signal integrity methods (US9986921B2), RR-interval and blood pressure monitoring (US9872652B2), and mobile-device physiological parameter acquisition (US8718753B2, US10653362B2). Application dates span 2009 through 2016, placing the inventive period at the dawn of the clinical wearable era — well ahead of mainstream smartwatch health features.
This portfolio is strategically significant because it claims foundational signal-processing methods rather than form-factor or UI innovations — making it difficult to design around without sacrificing clinical accuracy. The patents originated from federally funded academic research at SUNY, UConn, and WPI, which increases their credibility with examiners and courts. For wearable OEMs, the breadth across AFib, ECG, PPG, and RR-interval monitoring means a single product line — such as a Galaxy Watch or Apple Watch — can implicate multiple patents simultaneously, amplifying per-unit royalty exposure.
Should you run an FTO against US9713428B2 and the SUNY/WPI wearable portfolio?
Any company developing or commercialising wearable devices with ECG recording, atrial fibrillation detection, PPG-based heart rate monitoring, or motion-artifact correction should conduct formal FTO analysis against this nine-patent portfolio. The settlement with Samsung — without any invalidity ruling — means all nine patents are in full force. Fitness tracker manufacturers, clinical remote monitoring suppliers, ODM partners, and mobile health app developers that integrate biosignal processing are all potentially within the claims’ scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent lets R&D and IP teams map product features against each of the nine asserted patents simultaneously, surfacing claim-level overlap and prior art that could support an IPR petition. Because no court has ruled on validity or claim construction here, independent IPR filings remain an available defensive option — but timing matters. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can also alert you if this consortium files demand letters or new actions against companies in your competitive space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9713428B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Wearable Health & Biosignal Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable ECG, AFib, and PPG patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas against wearable device manufacturers.
What this case signals for the wearable health-monitoring IP landscape
Nine university-owned biosignal patents just extracted a settlement from the world’s largest Android wearable maker. The IP risk is not resolved — it has been redirected.
University patent consortia are a credible enforcement threat in wearables
This case demonstrates that academic IP holders — when pooling patents across institutions — can sustain complex, multi-patent litigation against Tier-1 electronics manufacturers through nearly 800 days of proceedings. R&D leaders at wearable companies should treat university biosignal portfolios with the same seriousness as NPE and Big Tech enforcement.
No invalidity ruling means all nine patents survive at full strength
Because the case settled before any merits ruling, Samsung obtained no IPR estoppel or court-issued invalidity finding. Each of the nine patents — covering AFib detection, ECG processing, and PPG noise removal — remains presumptively valid. Competitors cannot free-ride on this litigation; they must conduct independent clearance analysis before shipping overlapping features.
York v Samsung — key questions answered
The plaintiffs asserted nine U.S. patents: US9713428B2, US8417326B2, US9408576B2, US10278647B2, US10285601B2, US9986921B2, US9872652B2, US8718753B2, and US10653362B2. The patents cover atrial fibrillation detection, ECG heart rate monitoring, motion-artifact removal from PPG and ECG signals, RR-interval monitoring, and physiological monitoring via mobile devices — capabilities directly relevant to Samsung’s Galaxy Watch health platform.
The case was resolved by a confidential settlement and closed on 30 May 2025 via a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice (Dkt. No. 229). Dismissal with prejudice means the plaintiffs — SUNY, UConn, and WPI — are permanently barred from re-asserting the same patent claims against Samsung in future litigation. No court ruling on infringement, validity, or claim construction was issued, so the patents remain fully enforceable against other parties.
Yes. Because the case settled before any merits ruling, no court issued an invalidity finding or claim construction order that would limit the patents’ scope. All nine patents remain presumptively valid and enforceable. The dismissal with prejudice only bars the plaintiff universities from suing Samsung’s named entities on these specific claims — it has no effect on enforcement against any other wearable device manufacturer.
The Eastern District of Texas is historically a plaintiff-favoured venue in patent litigation, known for experienced patent juries, predictable scheduling orders, and relatively high plaintiff win rates. For a university consortium asserting a large portfolio against a global electronics company, E.D. Texas offers procedural familiarity and venue rules that can be favourable to patent holders. Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC — one of the named defendants — also has operations in Texas, which supports venue.
The asserted patents cover detection and monitoring of atrial fibrillation, ECG-based heart rate monitoring, PPG motion-artifact removal, and physiological monitoring via mobile devices — capabilities that are core features of Samsung’s Galaxy Watch series and related wearable health products. The involvement of Samsung Austin Semiconductor suggests the dispute may have extended to chip-level implementations of these biosignal processing functions, not only the end consumer device.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.