Patent Law University
Back to Blog
CAFC-PTOSeptember 15, 2026·25-1263, 25-1264, 25-1265·Affirmed.

DODOTS Licensing Solutions LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Holding

The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the PTAB. The judgment provides no reasoning, so the specific patentability issues and grounds affirmed are not clear from the disposition.

Why It Matters

This is a nonprecedential Rule 36 affirmance, so it resolves the parties’ PTAB appeals without creating written guidance for future cases.

Full Summary

DODOTS Licensing Solutions LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the PTAB. The judgment provides no reasoning, so the specific patentability issues and grounds affirmed are not clear from the disposition. This is a nonprecedential Rule 36 affirmance, so it resolves the parties’ PTAB appeals without creating written guidance for future cases. Affirmed. The appeals arose from PTAB IPR proceedings Nos. IPR2023-00621, IPR2023-00701, IPR2023-00756, IPR2024-00143, IPR2024-00144, and IPR2024-00145. The Federal Circuit panel affirmed per curiam under Federal Circuit Rule 36. Because there is no written opinion, the court did not identify any claim-construction, prior-art, or other patent-law reasoning. The judgment is expressly nonprecedential. Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential Rule 36 affirmance non-precedential

Key Points

  • The appeals arose from PTAB IPR proceedings Nos. IPR2023-00621, IPR2023-00701, IPR2023-00756, IPR2024-00143, IPR2024-00144, and IPR2024-00145.
  • The Federal Circuit panel affirmed per curiam under Federal Circuit Rule 36.
  • Because there is no written opinion, the court did not identify any claim-construction, prior-art, or other patent-law reasoning.
  • The judgment is expressly nonprecedential.
Rule 36 affirmancenon-precedential
Read Full Opinion

More on this topic