US 8610675

I'll search for authoritative information on US 8610675, including any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me get the remaining independent claims and check for any 2025–2026 appellate activity on this specific patent.

US 8,610,675 B2 — Technical Summary

1. Bibliographic identification (verified against the patent front page)

Classifications: G06F 3/041, 3/0416, 3/042, 3/0421, 3/046, 3/0487, 3/0488.

Note on inconsistent filing dates: Samsung's invalidity contentions (W.D. Tex.) state the '675 application "was filed as United States Patent Application No. 12/531,039, on September 11, 2009," whereas the printed patent recites a § 371 date of Jan. 15, 2010. I am reporting both literally rather than reconciling them.

2. Abstract (verbatim from the patent)

"An interactive assembly including at least one interactive surface element, at least a first region of the at least one interactive surface element having first user sensible functionality and at least a second region of the at least one interactive surface element having second functionality, different from the first user sensible functionality, input sensor functionality, including at least one input sensor located in propinquity to at least one of the at least one interactive surface element, operative to sense impingement of an electromagnetic radiation spot on at least one of the at least one first region and the at least one second region of the at least one interactive surface element and utilization functionality for employing outputs of the input sensor functionality in respect of impingement on either or both of the at least one first region and the at least one second region."

3. Independent claims — plain-language overview

Important limitation on this section: The '675 patent as printed has 13 claims. Power2B's Preliminary Infringement Contentions (Case No. 6:20-cv-01183-ADA, served May 7, 2021) assert claims 1, 11, and 13 — i.e., three independent claims. The parties' Joint Claim Construction Chart likewise groups claims 1, 11, and 13 together under the disputed term "radiation at [a/the/said] baseline level." I was able to retrieve claim 1 verbatim but not the verbatim text of claims 11 and 13 in this session. I will not reconstruct them.

Claim 1 — "A position sensing assembly" (verbatim)

1. A position sensing assembly comprising:

• an interactive surface element defining a surface;
• at least one pixel array comprising a plurality of detector elements configured to detect electromagnetic radiation at a baseline level, the at least one pixel array being configured to sense a position of at least one object with respect to a surface thereof according to locations of ones of the plurality of detector elements at which at least one of an amount of radiation detected and a change in the amount of radiation detected exceeds a predetermined threshold, the at least one pixel array being configured to sense at least a position of the at least one object with respect to the at least one pixel array when the at least one object has at least a predetermined degree of propinquity to the at least one pixel array;
• circuitry coupled to and receiving an output from the at least one pixel array receiving, the circuitry being configured to provide a non-imagewise input representing the position of the at least one object relative to the at least one pixel array; and
• wherein the change in the amount of radiation detected results from ones of the plurality of detector elements detecting reflected light from the object in addition to detecting the radiation at the baseline level.

Plain language: A touch/hover sensing panel. An array of light detectors sits at some baseline light level. When a finger (or stylus) comes near or touches the surface, reflected light lands on particular detectors, pushing them above a threshold, and those detector locations tell you where the object is. The circuit output is a position signal, not an image ("non-imagewise"). The claim closes by requiring that the detected change be due to the detectors seeing reflected light from the object on top of the baseline level (i.e., an additive-reflection architecture, as distinct from a shadowing architecture).

Claims 2–10 are dependent claims off claim 1 (e.g., claim 2 = the array senses reflected light; claim 3 = utilization circuitry providing "chording" functionality; claims 4–5 = distinguishing touching vs. not-touching and motion toward/away).

Claims 11 and 13 — independent claims (characterization only)

From the district court's Joint Claim Construction Chart and Power2B's infringement contentions, claims 11 and 13:

• are independent claims (they are asserted separately and are charted separately from claim 1);
• share the "radiation at [a/the/said] baseline level" limitation with claim 1, indicating that they are directed to the same baseline-radiation-detection family of subject matter; and
• are treated as raising the same indefiniteness dispute Samsung asserted against "all independent claims of the '675 Patent" (Samsung Reply Claim Construction Br., Doc. 46, filed Sep. 21, 2021).

The specification's two principal disclosed aspects are (a) an "interactive assembly" with a multi-region interactive surface element (first region with first user-sensible functionality, second region with different functionality) plus input sensor functionality and utilization functionality, and (b) a "position sensing assembly" with a pixel array detecting at a baseline level and outputting a non-imagewise position input. Claim 1 as issued maps to aspect (b). I would need the printed claim text to tell you authoritatively which of these aspects claims 11 and 13 track, and I am declining to guess.

4. Prosecution / family notes

• The '675 patent is a parent in a Power2B family. Related members include US 8,624,850, US 9,317,170, US 9,569,093, and US 10,156,931 (all asserted alongside the '675 in the W.D. Tex. case).
• The application for a later family member (the '931 family) was subject to a terminal disclaimer over "Patent # 8610675, 8624850 and 9317170," and the Examiner conducted an interview regarding a potential obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejection in view of those three patents (PTAB Ex. 2014 in IPR2021-01190).
• A restriction requirement with at least two identified groups of inventions was issued during prosecution of the parent '675 patent (per Power2B's petition for panel/en banc rehearing, CAFC Nos. 2023-1629/2023-1630).

5. Litigation and PTAB activity touching US 8,610,675

• District court: Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 6:20-cv-01183-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Division; Judge Alan D. Albright), complaint filed Dec. 23, 2020, 35 U.S.C. § 271. The '675 patent was one of five asserted patents; claims 1, 11, and 13 of the '675 were asserted against Samsung Galaxy S/Note devices (and, Power2B alleged, tablets and TVs).
• Markman: Hearing held Oct. 19, 2021; Joint Claim Construction Statement filed Oct. 7, 2021 (Doc. 52). Disputed terms included "radiation at [a/the/said] baseline level," the "propinquity" terms, "pixel array," and "circuitry coupled to and receiving an output from the at least one pixel array receiving."
• PTAB: IPR2021-01220, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Power2B, Inc., U.S. Patent No. 8,610,675 — Google Patents records this as having reached a Final Written Decision. (Google Patents displays "Petitioner: Unified Patents PTAB Data," which is the data source attribution, not the petitioner's identity; the petition papers themselves name Samsung as petitioner.)
• Related Samsung/Power2B IPRs in the same campaign include IPR2021-01190, IPR2021-01257, IPR2022-00300, and IPR2022-00405.
• Federal Circuit: In Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Nos. 2023-2184, 2024-1399, 2024-1400, the court issued a nonprecedential decision on May 19, 2025 (affirmed-in-part / reversed-in-part) — but that decision addressed the '570 and '364 patents, not the '675, and arose from IPR2022-00300 and IPR2022-00405. Appeals 2023-1629 / 2023-1630 also reference the '675 patent, but only as the "parent '675 patent" of a different asserted patent.
• Google Patents flags the family as "First worldwide family litigation filed" (Darts-IP family 39760200).

6. Explicit uncertainty / gaps

1. No 2026 CAFC docket activity specific to US 8,610,675 was found. My searches of Federal Circuit 2026 opinion/order materials surfaced no appeal identifying the '675 patent as the patent on appeal. I cannot affirmatively state that none exists; I can only state that I found none.
2. Verbatim text of claims 11 and 13 is not confirmed in this session. Only claim 1's text is quoted from the record.
3. The IPR2021-01220 Final Written Decision outcome (which claims, if any, held unpatentable, and whether it was appealed) is recorded as having issued by Google Patents, but I did not retrieve the decision document. Note that the family has subsequent Federal Circuit history (2023-2184 et al., decided May 19, 2025), so any '675-specific appeal would need to be checked against the Federal Circuit's own docket directly.
4. Current fee status: Google Patents lists the patent as "Expired – Fee Related" with an adjusted expiration of 2030-09-22, and states that legal status is an assumption and not a legal conclusion. This should be confirmed against USPTO Patent Center before being relied upon.