US 11693450

Patent Analysis: US 11,693,450 B2

Date of Analysis: May 1, 2026

Patent Number: 11,693,450

Title: Flexible display computing devices

Assignee: Lepton Computing LLC

Inventor: Stephen E. Delaporte

Filing Date: April 12, 2022

Issue Date: July 4, 2023

Abstract:
This patent describes reconfigurable touch screen computing devices with folding configurations. These devices feature flexible displays composed of segments that can be moved from a compact, folded state to an expanded, open state. The compact form factor is designed to be similar in size to a handheld phone and may include a speaker and microphone. In its expanded state, the device resembles a tablet computer and can even offer laptop-like functionality. A key aspect of the design is that both the compact and expanded configurations present a touch screen on the front and a protective housing on the back. The devices incorporate sensors to detect the current configuration and mechanisms for folding, alignment, and structural support. Magnets are also utilized to secure the device in either its folded or unfolded state. A central module, attached to at least one of the segments, houses the core processing, memory, and communication components, which are functional in both configurations.

Plain-Language Summary of Independent Claims:

The patent includes several independent claims that define the core of the invention. In simple terms, these claims protect:

• Claim 1: A computing device that can be reconfigured. It has a display made of multiple segments that can fold. The device can switch between a compact, phone-like size and an expanded, tablet-like size. Importantly, in both folded and unfolded states, there's a screen on one side and a protective case on the other. It also has sensors that know whether it's folded or open and uses magnets to hold it in either position. The "brains" of the device, like the processor and memory, are in one of the segments and work in both forms.
• Claim 10: A method for how the graphical user interface (GUI) of the device works. When the device is unfolded from its compact state to its expanded state, the on-screen content automatically adjusts and rescales to fit the larger display.
• Claim 16: A computing device with a flexible display that can be folded. This claim also describes the ability to switch between a smaller, phone-like form and a larger, tablet-like form. It emphasizes that a single, continuous flexible display is used across the different segments. Like the other claims, it mentions the use of sensors to detect the device's state, a protective housing, and a main processing unit that functions in both configurations.

Legal Status and Potential Litigation: As of April 26, 2026, there is public information indicating that Lepton Computing LLC has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics. This lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleges that Samsung's Galaxy Z Fold and Z Flip foldable phones, as well as the new Galaxy Z TriFold, infringe on a portfolio of nine patents, including US Patent No. 11,693,450. This suggests that Lepton Computing LLC is actively enforcing its patent rights related to foldable device technology. A search of the CAFC dockets for 2026 did not reveal any publicly available information regarding this specific patent at the appellate level as of today's date.

Disclaimer: This analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal status and interpretation of a patent can be complex and may change over time.

As of the current date, US Patent No. 11,693,450 is involved in the following litigation:

Case: Lepton Computing LLC v. [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Lepton Computing LLC
• Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• Case Number: Specific case number information is not available in the provided search results.
• Filing Date: Publicly reported around April 26, 2026.
• Status: The case is currently pending.
• Details:
  • Lepton Computing LLC alleges that Samsung's Galaxy Z Fold and Z Flip series, as well as the new Galaxy Z TriFold, infringe on nine of their patents, including US Patent No. 11,693,450.
  • The lawsuit covers a range of technologies essential to foldable smartphones, including hardware structure, display protection, hinge design, and software features like "app continuity" for seamless screen transitions.
  • The complaint includes all of Samsung's foldable models from the Galaxy Z Fold 3 and Flip 3 to the present.
  • Lepton Computing is seeking both monetary damages and a permanent injunction to halt sales of the allegedly infringing Samsung devices in the United States.
  • Some reports note that Lepton Computing has been characterized as a "Non-Practicing Entity" (NPE), as they have not commercially produced a foldable device themselves. There are also questions raised about the timing of Lepton's patent filings in relation to Samsung's product launches.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings currently on file or publicly reported for US Patent 11693450. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), providing a defendant with an open field for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) if grounds exist.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, no claims of US Patent 11693450 have been canceled or sustained through PTAB proceedings. All claims (1-18) remain untested by the PTAB. Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any petitioner, meaning all prior art grounds and statutory bases (§ 102, § 103, § 112) remain available for a potential IPR or PGR filing. There are no patterns of repeated petitions by the same entity, aggressive appeals by the patent owner, or involvement by defensive aggregators like Unified Patents, as no proceedings have been initiated.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 11693450, a defendant facing assertion of this patent has the full range of AIA trial options available. The absence of PTAB challenges for a patent that is actively being litigated (as indicated by the lawsuit against Samsung) could suggest that potential petitioners have not yet found compelling grounds or have chosen alternative strategies. However, it also presents an opportunity for a defendant to be the first to challenge the patent's validity at the PTAB.

• Consider filing an IPR or PGR: A thorough prior art search should be conducted to identify strong grounds for invalidating claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103. Given the active litigation, an IPR or PGR could be a strategic move to potentially stay the district court litigation and resolve validity issues more quickly and cost-effectively at the PTAB.
• Monitor for future filings: Continuously monitor the PTAB E2E system for any newly filed petitions against US11693450, as other defendants or interested parties may initiate proceedings.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings currently on file or publicly reported for US Patent 11693450. The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API indicates no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of its most recent ingest. Furthermore, a broader web search for "PTAB US11693450", "IPR US11693450", and "PGR US11693450" did not yield any relevant PTAB cases, with results primarily pointing to stock market information for "Progressive Corp (PGR)". This confirms that the patent's claims have not been challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), providing a defendant with an open field for inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) if grounds exist.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, no claims of US Patent 11693450 have been canceled or sustained through PTAB proceedings. All claims (1-18) remain untested by the PTAB. Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape established under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for any petitioner, meaning all prior art grounds and statutory bases (§ 102, § 103, § 112) remain available for a potential IPR or PGR filing. There are no patterns of repeated petitions by the same entity, aggressive appeals by the patent owner, or involvement by defensive aggregators like Unified Patents, as no proceedings have been initiated.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 11693450, a defendant facing assertion of this patent has the full range of AIA trial options available. The absence of PTAB challenges for a patent that is actively being litigated (as indicated by the lawsuit against Samsung in the litigation summary) could suggest that potential petitioners have not yet found compelling grounds or have chosen alternative strategies. However, it also presents an opportunity for a defendant to be the first to challenge the patent's validity at the PTAB.

• Consider filing an IPR or PGR: A thorough prior art search should be conducted to identify strong grounds for invalidating claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103. Given the active litigation, an IPR or PGR could be a strategic move to potentially stay the district court litigation and resolve validity issues more quickly and cost-effectively at the PTAB.
• Monitor for future filings: Continuously monitor the PTAB E2E system for any newly filed petitions against US11693450, as other defendants or interested parties may initiate proceedings.

Inventors

• Stephen E. Delaporte: Employer at the time of filing not explicitly stated in the patent document.

Original assignee

The original assignee is Lepton Computing LLC. The patent document does not provide information about whether Lepton Computing LLC shipped a product embodying the claims or their primary line of business. Their current status is "Active" as per the Google Patents legal status, and they are actively asserting this patent in litigation against Samsung Electronics.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Patent Assignment Search database (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) was checked for US Patent 11693450. As of June 1, 2026, there are no recorded assignments for US Patent 11693450 after its issuance. This indicates that Lepton Computing LLC, the original assignee, remains the current owner of the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11693450
    2010 : Priority date
    2022 : Filed by Lepton Computing LLC
    2023 : Issued to Lepton Computing LLC
    2026 : Litigation filed by Lepton Computing LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The patent has not been transferred from Lepton Computing LLC. While Lepton Computing LLC is described as having no public contact details and only two employees, and not having commercially produced a device, which could suggest a shell entity, there is no evidence of a transfer to another shell entity in the assignment record.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Lepton Computing LLC is the only entity in the ownership chain and is not identified as a commonly known NPE from the provided lists. However, some sources describe Lepton Computing LLC as likely a "patent troll" or "Non-Practicing Entity" (NPE) in the context of their lawsuit against Samsung.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. There is only one entry in the assignment record (the initial assignment to Lepton Computing LLC upon filing), so no recurrence can be observed.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are no recorded assignments of the patent.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The patent was issued to Lepton Computing LLC on July 4, 2023, and the litigation against Samsung was filed around April 26, 2026. There have been no recorded transfers of the patent since its issuance.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no information to suggest that Lepton Computing LLC has filed for bankruptcy or that the patent was sold in such proceedings.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While Lepton Computing LLC is identified as an NPE, there is no explicit information in the provided context to suggest they are asserting on behalf of an operating company against competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently owned by Lepton Computing LLC, which is actively asserting it.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence. While there are no recorded transfers in the USPTO assignment record, public reports characterize Lepton Computing LLC as a "Non-Practicing Entity" that has not commercially produced a device, but rather holds patents to sue other companies. The current litigation against Samsung, filed around April 26, 2026, supports the assertion-focused nature of the entity.

USPTO Assignment Center search page: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 11,693,450, I need to access the patent's citations. However, the provided search results do not directly list the prior art cited within US Patent 11,693,450. The USPTO Patent Public Search tool and Google Patents are good resources for this, but I cannot directly interact with them to retrieve the specific citation list.

Therefore, I cannot, with high confidence, provide a list of the most relevant prior art for US Patent 11,693,450, including full citations, publication/filing dates, brief descriptions, and which claims they potentially anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Based on the provided patent text, which lists "Prior art keywords" and acknowledges the existence of certain general prior art concepts, but does not identify specific prior art references (e.g., patent numbers or publications), a detailed obviousness analysis combining specific documents is not possible. Therefore, this analysis will discuss the potential obviousness of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by considering the general state of the art around the priority date of August 10, 2010, as implied by the patent's own background and problem statements.

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA) in 2010, working in the field of computing devices and displays, would have been familiar with:

• The increasing miniaturization of electronic components, leading to more powerful handheld devices.
• The widespread adoption and advancements in touch screen display technology.
• The common form factors of computing devices, including small handheld phones and larger tablet/laptop computers.
• The desire for larger display areas on portable devices without sacrificing portability.
• Basic mechanical engineering principles for creating articulated or folding structures.
• Standard electronic components such as processors, memory, communication systems, and various types of sensors (e.g., proximity, hall-effect, force-sensing).
• Graphical user interfaces (GUIs) that adapt to different display sizes or orientations.

The patent itself states that "variations on flexible displays and the implementation of multiple screen displays have been proposed to enable the transformation of a display from a compact state to an expanded state." This establishes that the general concept of reconfigurable displays was known prior to the invention. The patent then identifies specific problems with these existing approaches, such as difficulty in achieving a completely flat compact position with flexible displays due to folding radii, and the need for reconfigurable structures, alignment locking mechanisms, and optimized flexible circuits. These identified needs would have provided a clear motivation for a POSA to seek improvements in existing reconfigurable display technologies.

Obviousness Analysis of Claims 1 and 16 (Device Claims)

Combinations of Known Elements and Motivation:

Claims 1 and 16 generally describe a reconfigurable computing device with a display (segmented or flexible) and structural support, transitioning between compact (phone) and expanded (tablet/laptop) states, with a touch screen front and protective housing back in both states. They also include sensors to indicate the state, and a centralized computing module. Claim 1 additionally specifies magnets for locking.

1. Reconfigurable Display with Structural Support and Form Factors (Claims 1 & 16):

   • Known Elements: The patent explicitly acknowledges that "variations on flexible displays and the implementation of multiple screen displays have been proposed to enable the transformation of a display from a compact state to an expanded state." Separately, the concept of "structural support" and "segments" was also known, as indicated by the prior art keywords. The general idea of distinct "compact" and "expanded" states corresponding to common form factors (phone, tablet, laptop) would have been familiar to a POSA.
   • Motivation: A POSA would have been motivated to combine these known concepts to address the acknowledged need for "increased size without sacrificing the convenience of a small device." Improving upon existing flexible/multiple display designs, a POSA would recognize that combining the display elements with a structural support is necessary for a robust and functional reconfigurable device. Designing the device to adopt established form factors (phone, tablet) in different states would be an obvious design choice driven by user familiarity and market demand. Ensuring a touch screen on the front and a protective housing on the back in both states is a fundamental requirement for functional, durable, and user-friendly portable electronic devices.

2. Sensors to Indicate Device State (Claims 1 & 16):

   • Known Elements: Sensors for detecting the mechanical state of a device (e.g., whether a laptop lid is open or closed, or a flip phone is opened) were conventional in 2010. The concept of using sensors to trigger software or hardware responses based on physical configuration was well-established.
   • Motivation: Given a reconfigurable display, a POSA would have been motivated to integrate such known sensors to allow the computing device to dynamically adapt its functionality, display output, and power management based on its physical configuration (compact or expanded). The patent itself highlights the importance of "sensors that indicate to a processor the state of configuration" for facilitating content transition. This is a logical extension of existing sensor technology to a novel device configuration.

3. Magnets for Locking (Claim 1):

   • Known Elements: Magnets were commonly used in 2010 for securing components, providing latches in consumer electronics, such as holding tablet covers closed or laptop screens shut.
   • Motivation: To ensure a stable and secure configuration in both the compact and expanded states, a POSA would have been motivated to incorporate known magnetic locking mechanisms. This would prevent accidental unfolding or collapsing and provide a satisfying user experience, without requiring complex mechanical latches.

4. Centralized Computing Module (Claims 1 & 16):

   • Known Elements: The concept of centralizing core processing, memory, and communication components within a single, main housing or module was standard practice for portable electronic devices. This minimizes bulk and simplifies design.
   • Motivation: In a reconfigurable device with moving display segments, a POSA would be strongly motivated to house "substantially all processing and memory, and a communications system" within "at least one segment" to reduce the complexity and fragility of distributing these components across flexible or moving parts. This design choice would enhance durability, minimize thickness, and ensure consistent performance regardless of the device's state.

Obviousness Analysis of Claim 10 (Method Claim)

Combinations of Known Elements and Motivation:

Claim 10 describes a method for sensing the transition of a reconfigurable device and automatically rescaling content via a GUI from a compact to an expanded state.

1. Sensing Transition and Adapting GUI (Claim 10):
   • Known Elements: As discussed, sensors for detecting device configuration changes were known. GUIs that adapt to changes in screen size or orientation (e.g., rotating a phone from portrait to landscape, connecting an external monitor to a laptop) were also common in 2010.
   • Motivation: Given the existence of reconfigurable displays and the ability to sense their physical state, a POSA would have been clearly motivated to implement a GUI that automatically adjusts content. The patent itself highlights the need for a "graphical user interface that facilitates the transition of content from one state to another" to improve user interaction and allow "rescaling and viewing content on both a small scale display and a large scale display". This is an obvious software solution to enhance usability and maintain optimal content presentation on a dynamically changing display. The concept of "app continuity" or seamless screen transitions, which the current litigation mentions, aligns with this motivation.

In summary, while specific prior art documents are not provided, the patent's own description of the technological landscape and the problems it sought to address suggests that a POSA in 2010 would have been motivated to combine known elements and conventional engineering principles to create reconfigurable devices. This motivation would stem from the clear need to provide larger display areas on portable devices while retaining convenience, and to address the recognized limitations of existing flexible and multi-screen display technologies.