Untitled case

Case Overview & Background — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Power2B, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Nos. 23-1629, 23-1631, 23-1745, 23-1753)

Parties and posture. This appeal arises from inter partes review (IPR) proceedings between [Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (appellants/petitioners) and Power2B, Inc. (cross-appellant/patent owner). Samsung is a global consumer-electronics and display manufacturer (smartphones, tablets, monitors); Power2B is a patent-assertion/licensing company that owns a portfolio of interactive-display patents and has been described in coverage of this dispute as the patent holder asserting those patents against Samsung. Power2B sued Samsung in December 2020 in the Western District of Texas (Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 6:20-cv-01183-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright), asserting five patents that include the '093 patent. Samsung counter-programmed with coordinated IPR petitions — including IPR2021-01239 (U.S. Patent No. 8,624,850) and IPR2021-01266 (U.S. Patent No. 9,569,093), plus companion IPRs on the '170, '675, and '931 patents — and the resulting PTAB final written decisions are what is on appeal. Caveat on case number: the metadata identifies this matter as CAFC No. 23-1753; per the Federal Circuit's May 2025 rehearing-denial order, 23-1753 is one of four consolidated appeals (23-1629, 23-1631, 23-1745, 23-1753) from IPR2021-01239 and IPR2021-01266, with the lead opinion issued under No. 23-1629 (nonprecedential, March 31, 2025).

Patents, technology, and accused products. The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,624,850 and 9,569,093 (the '093 patent is titled "Displays and Information Input Devices"), which share a common specification dating to an April 2006 filing. The claimed technology covers integrated display-and-input devices: a pixel array provides a visually sensible output; at least one sensor detects the position of an object (e.g., a finger) when it is within a "predetermined degree of propinquity" to the display — i.e., touch or near-touch hover — and circuitry converts the sensor output into non-imagewise input. Certain claims require a "detector assembly" arranged along at least one edge of a viewing-plane-defining plate — i.e., edge-mounted optical detector elements that sense light impinging on and propagating within a display plate (the '093 patent also discloses propinquity-based UI functionality such as enlarging an app icon when a finger hovers over it). The accused products are Samsung's interactive displays and input devices — smartphones, tablets, and other touch/proximity-sensing screens.

Developments and significance. The Federal Circuit issued a split, nonprecedential disposition on March 31, 2025 — affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. The court reversed the PTAB's construction of "detector assembly" (the Board had improperly read a "two or more detector elements" requirement into the term, contrary to claim differentiation and plain meaning absent disavowal), vacated the associated non-obviousness findings, and remanded; it affirmed the Board's cancellation of the "propinquity" claims, rejecting Power2B's argument that propinquity-based sensing excludes touch. A further nonprecedential opinion followed on September 4, 2025, and Power2B's combined petition for panel rehearing/en banc rehearing was denied (May 2025), with PTAB remand proceedings still pending — consistent with the case's "active" status. The case is notable on several fronts: it is a consolidated, multi-IPR, multi-appeal validity campaign by a major OEM against an assertion-focused patent owner over foundational touch/proximity display technology; it is a textbook example of the W.D. Tex. (Albright) venue-plus-IPR playbook; and the split result leaves key claims of the '093 patent in limbo pending remand, creating licensing and design-around uncertainty across the display/input-device industry. Counsel identified in public sources: Polsinelli PC (Jason Wietjes; Adam P. Daniels in the IPRs) for Power2B and O'Melveny & Myers LLP (Ryan K. Yagura; Benjamin Haber and Renia Zervos in the IPRs) for Samsung. Unverified: the specific panel judges for the March 31, 2025 opinion are not identified in publicly available snippets (the opinion is nonprecedential), and the exact current status of the W.D. Tex. district court case vis-à-vis the IPR stays is not confirmed.

Lack of Specific Public Information Regarding CAFC Case 23-1753 and Patent 9,569,093

As of August 20, 2026, a comprehensive search for key legal developments and outcomes related to U.S. Patent 9,569,093 in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) case 23-1753 has not yielded specific details regarding the parties involved, the underlying district court litigation, or associated Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. Without this foundational information, a detailed chronological summary of filing, motions, claim construction, discovery, trial, settlement, and final disposition cannot be provided.

General searches for CAFC case 23-1753 and patent 9,569,093 did not identify the names of the appellant and appellee, nor did they link this specific Federal Circuit case number to a particular district court case. Similarly, direct searches within legal news sources, general patent litigation databases, and the USPTO PTAB system for IPR/PGR proceedings specifically on patent 9,569,093 did not produce the required details.

It is possible that the case is newly filed at the Federal Circuit, under seal, or that the patent is part of a broader litigation where it is not the primary identifier in public summaries, making it challenging to locate without direct access to PACER or specialized legal docketing services.

Therefore, at this time, the key legal developments and outcome for this specific patent infringement litigation remain unascertainable through publicly available web search resources.

Despite extensive web searches using the case number 23-1753 and patent 9569093, the specific case name and the parties involved in this Federal Circuit appeal could not be definitively identified through publicly available resources. Without the case caption and the identity of the appellant (plaintiff), it is not possible to determine the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) at this time. Access to the full docket sheet via PACER would be necessary to obtain this information.

Despite extensive web searches for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) case number 23-1753 and patent 9569093, the specific case caption and the identities of the parties involved could not be definitively identified through publicly available resources. Without this crucial information, it is not possible to determine the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) at this time. Access to the full docket sheet, typically available through PACER, would be necessary to obtain the case caption and subsequently identify the attorneys involved.

The previous research also noted a similar challenge in identifying plaintiff representatives, stating that "Without the case caption and the identity of the appellant (plaintiff), it is not possible to determine the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) at this time. Access to the full docket sheet via PACER would be necessary to obtain this information." This limitation equally applies to identifying defendant's counsel.