The Neonode lawsuit is actually two lawsuits, filed in June 2020 by Neonode Smartphone LLC against Samsung and Apple over touchscreen patents that include the slide-to-unlock feature. Samsung settled in 2025, sending roughly $15.5 million in net proceeds to Neonode Inc. Apple fought on and won: in June 2026, a federal judge in California invalidated the key patent, ending that case without a trial on infringement.
Who Actually Filed the Lawsuits
Neonode Inc., the Stockholm-based optical sensing company, was not a party to either case. In May 2019, Neonode assigned a portfolio of patents to Aequitas Technologies LLC, a patent monetization firm founded by former Acacia Research executive Dooyong Lee.1SEC. Neonode Inc. 8-K Exhibit 10.1, Assignment Agreement2Aequitas Technologies. Aequitas Technologies Home Aequitas handles licensing and enforcement at its own expense and splits net proceeds with Neonode fifty-fifty, with Neonode’s share further reduced by a brokerage fee tied to the original assignment. Aequitas has been identified by patent analytics sources as a non-practicing entity.3GreyB. Predict Patent Litigation
Neonode Smartphone LLC, an Aequitas subsidiary, is the entity that appears on the case captions. That structure kept Neonode itself off the docket while preserving its financial interest.
The Patents and the Slide-to-Unlock Claim
Two U.S. patents drove the litigation:
- U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879, “User interface for mobile handheld computer unit,” covering a slide-to-unlock feature for touchscreen devices.4ipfray. Apple Wins Summary Judgment of Invalidity Over Neonode Patent
- U.S. Patent No. 8,812,993, a related patent on mobile device user interface technology.5Bloomberg Law. Samsung, Apple Appeal Touchscreen Patent Board Loss to Neonode
The technology traces to the Neonode N1m, a Windows CE handset the Swedish company released in 2005 with a swipe-to-unlock gesture that predated Apple’s own slide-to-unlock patent filing in December 2005. That device had already surfaced in earlier disputes overseas. A Dutch judge found the N1m “already implemented the entirety of Apple’s claimed invention” when ruling Apple’s European slide-to-unlock patent likely invalid,6AppleInsider. Dutch Judge Says Apple’s Slide to Unlock Patent Is Likely Invalid and the German Federal Patent Court cited the N1m when invalidating all claims in Apple’s slide-to-unlock patent in 2013.7Slashdot. German Court Finds Apple’s Slide-to-Unlock Patent Invalid
How the Samsung Case Ended
Neonode Smartphone LLC filed against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. on June 8, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00507), before Judge Alan D. Albright.8CourtListener. Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. The court issued its final claim construction order on July 14, 2023.9PACER Monitor. Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
The case never reached trial. On August 29, 2025, the parties jointly moved to vacate the claim construction orders and dismiss. Judge Albright granted the motion on September 2, 2025, dismissing all claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses with prejudice.9PACER Monitor. Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Neonode disclosed the financial impact the next day, estimating $15 million to $20 million in net proceeds as its share under the 2019 Assignment Agreement.10PR Newswire. Neonode Announces Anticipated Financial Proceeds From Patent Lawsuit Settlement The company’s 2025 results, released in March 2026, put the actual figures at $19.389 million in gross proceeds, a $3.878 million brokerage fee, and a $15.5 million net gain, with cash paid in October 2025.11Neonode. Neonode Reports 2025 Financial Results Because the dismissal vacated the claim construction orders, the Samsung settlement produced no published ruling on the patents’ scope or validity.
How the Apple Case Ended
Neonode Smartphone LLC sued Apple Inc. the same day, June 8, 2020, in the Western District of Texas. Apple moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California in November 2020, where it was reassigned as Docket No. 3:21-cv-08872.12CourtListener. Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Apple Inc.
Apple did not settle. In April 2026, it filed a motion for early summary judgment arguing that the ‘879 patent was invalid. On June 8, 2026, U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen granted the motion, finding the swipe-to-unlock patent “lacks a valid written description” and invalidating Neonode Smartphone’s infringement claim.13Law360. Calif. Judge Sides With Apple in Screen Sliding Patent Fight The case was terminated on June 16, 2026.12CourtListener. Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Apple Inc.
Written description is a requirement that a patent’s specification adequately describe the claimed invention. Judge Chen’s ruling ended the case without reaching whether Apple’s products infringed.
What the Split Outcome Means
The two suits, filed the same day over the same technology, ended in opposite results. Samsung’s settlement roughly doubled Neonode’s cash reserves and left no precedent behind, since the claim construction orders were vacated. Apple’s win, by contrast, produced a judicial finding that the ‘879 patent’s written description was deficient, a ruling that could constrain future enforcement of that patent against other defendants.