Tech Viking

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@mwshapiro Judge Albright just granted the joint motion, vacating his final claim construction and dismissing, with prejudice, the Neonode v. Samsung case! Next up is Apple case in California, with about 5 times the amount of smartphones in the case compared to the Samsung case.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

$NEON Judge Alan Albright just signed the Order Vacating his previous Claim Construction and DISMISSING the Neonode v. Samsung case! https://t.co/huxS4mXDrl

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@mwshapiro In a previous case Smart Mobile Tech v. Samsung, the same attorney Philip Graves filed almost exactly the same motion (Vacate Claim Construction & Dismissal) on a Friday and judge Albright signed it directly the next day (Monday) without any changes.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@Deezee1031 @overdrivetbra @unemon1 The company was owned by the founders then and was not for sale. Further, the company was not listed on Nasdaq then and your incorrect market cap figures are nonsensical.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@unemon1 You are again misinformed. None of these patents were ever part of any BK. The patents were owned by Neonode Inc, the not by the previous Swedish subsidiary, at that time.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@unemon1 Are you saying that Apple's slide-to-unlock feature/patent and the Neonode 879 patent are not similar? Neonode's patent includes all the functionality of Apple's patent, and adds much more, such as accessing the control panel or answering a phone call with a swipe gesture.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@Deezee1031 I can, and I just did. Is is highly relevant since both cases are for a single patent used in common consumer devices (smartphones/smart speakers) sold in millions of units. I would argue that the 879 patent is much more useful, more used and more valuable than the Google patent.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

$NEON The Google devices were mostly Nest speakers with an ASP of 50-100 usd -> which renders the royalty rate awarded to around 2.3%-4.6% of the unit selling price. If percentages kept the same, devices with an ASP of $400 (Samsung phones) would result in even higher royalties.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

$NEON Sonos was previously awarded damages from Google with a royalty rate of 2.3 USD / unit. The Federal Circuit has now confirmed the patent's validity. Great news for patent owners like Neonode, showing high per unit royalties for a single patent! https://t.co/J5PVbk1gx1

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

$NEON If found guilty of willful infringement, Google would have risked up to 3x the 2.30 USD royalty rate -> up to 6.9 USD per unit, for a single patent. The risk of willful infringement found by a jury, could lead to early settlements, such as in the Neonode vs Samsung case.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

$NEON Sonos was previously awarded damages from Google with a royalty rate of 2.3 USD / unit. The Federal Circuit has now confirmed the patent's validity. Great news for patent owners like Neonode, showing high per unit royalties for a single patent! https://t.co/J5PVbk1gx1

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

$NEON Sonos was previously awarded damages from Google with a royalty rate of 2.3 USD / unit. The Federal Circuit has now confirmed the patent's validity. Great news for patent owners like Neonode, showing high per unit royalties for a single patent! https://t.co/J5PVbk1gx1

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

$NEON $GOOG $SONO Jury awarded Sonos 2.30 Euro from Google for EACH sold device! And this is for just ONE single patent! We can now forget the ideas put forward that a single patent can only generate license fees in the range of ”cents per unit”!

https://t.co/hWwQZfYYXB

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@unemon1 @Shrimp_a_Whales Again, what we know about that is that a jury in 2014 awarded reasonable royalty of around 2 usd for similar patents. You are also forgetting that Samsung's infringement on Neonodes 879 patent was willful, leading to risk for treble damages up to 3x the royalty rate.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@unemon1 That is not true. Samsung did not say in any of their reports before or after they paid Apple, that the Apple case was "a risk" or risked having any material impact on their financial position.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@unemon1 @Shrimp_a_Whales You are again misinformed about the reasonable royalties. A jury in 2014 awarded Apple (v. Samsung) per-unit damages of $2.75, $2.30, and $1.41 on 3 patents—roughly $3.7, $3.1, and $1.9 in 2025 dollars. Including royalties for Apple's very similar "slide-to-unlock" patent.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@mwshapiro @mwshapiro Settlement agreement signed, joint motion to dismiss the case posted in the docket in the Neonode vs Samsung case.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

https://t.co/MEcf3ggKF9

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

$NEON DISMISSAL 🥂

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@Deezee1031 @F_Lindberg This is what a jury awarded per patent per unit, in the Apple vs Samsung case. Further, Apple demanded $40 for 5 patents in the same case, that is average $8 per patent per unit. The suit against Apple is starting again after Samsung, with world wide sales and billions of units.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@unemon1 The above numbers are for US sales only. Neonode have asked for sales numbers for Samsung phones sold outside the US in Fact Discovery, potentially going for world wide sales which would be around 3.5 B units increasing the jury awards / settlement numbers quite substantially.

[Tech Viking @techviking1]

@unemon1 Neonodes '879 patent is further more general than Apple's slide-to-unlock patent. Take $2 per unit, times 700 million Samsung phones 2014-2026. Gets you 1.4 BUSD. Samsung's infringement is further willful, they risk up to 3x in a jury trial --> 4.2 BUSD.