US PTAB IP Litigation

Senko Advanced Components argues that US Conec’s IPR petition fails because the cited prior art does not qualify under §102 or disclose the required “slidably received” groove features of claim 1. The patent owner seeks denial of the petition.

patent · Mar 1, 2024

US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.

patent terminated or settled · Mar 1, 2024

Senko Advanced Components submits a sur‑reply defending its ownership of U.S. Patent 11,415,760 against US Conec Ltd.’s IPR petition. The Owner emphasizes that a pre‑CIP assignment transferred all rights, including continuations‑in‑part, and that the challenger failed to prove the Wong patent qualifies as prior art.

US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.

US Conec and Senko Advanced Components entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of multiple IPR proceedings, including the patent covering 11,415,760. The Board granted the termination and partially approved confidentiality of the settlement agreement.

JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.

· IPR2024-00380

JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. successfully petitioned to challenge P2i Ltd.'s patent (11041087) before the PTAB, leading to institution of the IPR. The petitioner alleges that the polymer coating claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Cohen and Legein.

Panasonic Automotive Systems Co., Ltd. v.UNM Rainforest Innovations

· IPR2024-00364

Panasonic Automotive Systems challenged UNM Rainforest Innovations' patent (8265096) in an IPR, arguing that prior art from IEEE 802.11 standards anticipates or renders the claims obvious. The Board found strong arguments favoring institution based on favorable Fintiv factors.

patent denied · Mar 1, 2024

JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.

· IPR2024-00380

JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. successfully petitioned to overturn a discretionary denial of IPR for P2i Ltd.'s patent (11041087). The Board found that the prior art was sufficiently evaluated during prosecution, leading to the institution of the case on § 103 grounds.

Panasonic Automotive Systems Co., Ltd. v.UNM Rainforest Innovations

· IPR2024-00364

The PTAB denied institution of an IPR challenge against UNM Rainforest Innovations' patent 8265096, finding no reasonable likelihood that the petitioner could prove unpatentability. The denial hinged on the Board's rejection of anticipation arguments based on prior art related to wireless data formats.

US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.

patent final · Mar 1, 2024

The PTAB instituted trial on all 17 claims of patent 11415760, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for many claims over Raven and Kuffel. The Board adopted the petitioner's definition of 'slidably received,' rejecting the Patent Owner's narrow interpretation.

JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. v.P2i Ltd.

· IPR2024-00380

The PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable over prior art based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board determined that combining references like Cohen and Legein, or Francesch and Legein, was motivated by intrinsic evidence and skilled artisan capabilities. This decision significantly impacts the patent owner's portfolio in plasma polymerization coatings for electronics.

patent · Mar 1, 2024

US Conec Ltd. v.Senko Advanced Components, Inc.

US Conec Ltd. challenged 17 claims of Senko Advanced Components, Inc.'s patent using grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103). The petitioner argues that the claimed optical fiber connectors are rendered obvious by various combinations of prior art references like Raven, Kuffel, Wong, and Gniadek. The case was dismissed without a final ruling due to a stipulation not to pursue district court grounds.

patent denied · Feb 29, 2024

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

· PGR2024-00019

Inari Agriculture challenges the PTAB’s denial of its PGR, arguing the Board improperly required seed sequencing under §103 for a plant utility patent. The petition seeks director review to overturn the denial and restore the ability to contest the patent without analyzing deposited seed.

Inari Agriculture, Inc. v.Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

· PGR2024-00019

The USPTO Director denied Inari Agriculture's request for a Director Review of the PTAB's institution denial, leaving Pioneer Hi‑Bred's seed patent intact.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

Samsung Austin Semiconductor challenges the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, defending the Board’s anticipation and obviousness findings that rely on the prior‑art reference Sung'026 for its CMP pad‑dressing technology.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

Samsung submits an authorized response to the Patent Owner’s Director Review request, defending the Board’s findings that the ’802 patent’s claims are valid and that prior art references, including Sung’146, are properly considered. The petitioner seeks denial of the review.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

Samsung seeks to invalidate a CMP‑pad dresser patent (U.S. 9,138,862) by alleging that prior‑art references, especially Sung’026 and related disclosures, anticipate or render obvious all 20 claims. The petition argues public accessibility of the prior art and cites discretionary factors favoring institution.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

Samsung’s IPR against Chien‑Min Sung’s 9,724,802 patent was decided with claims 1‑9 and 12‑21 found unpatentable. The patent owner now petitions the Director to overturn the Board’s findings, arguing errors in the designated‑profile analysis, ignored expert testimony, and improper priority treatment of Sung ’146.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

patent instituted · Feb 29, 2024

Samsung’s IPR challenge to a CMP‑pad conditioning patent is contested by the patent owner, who files a Director Review request alleging Board abuse of discretion on anticipation and obviousness grounds. The owner seeks reversal of the final written decision and validation of all 20 claims.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

patent denied · Feb 29, 2024

The PTAB sent an email directing Samsung Austin Semiconductor to file a limited 15‑page response to a Director Review request for IPR2024‑00534 and IPR2024‑00535, prohibiting new evidence and additional briefings.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

The USPTO Director denied Samsung’s request for a review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024‑00534 concerning patent 9,138,862. The order affirms the earlier IPR outcome and provides no further relief.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

patent denied · Feb 29, 2024

Court decision.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. v.Sung, Chien-Min

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00535 concerning patent 9,724,802. The order confirms that the decision stands.