Miriam L. Quinn
73 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
73 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Koninklijke KPN N.V.
Samsung and Dutch telecom KPN settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of KPN’s patent before institution. The settlement agreement is to be kept confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs before trial. The parties filed joint motions to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petitions, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate three pending IPRs before any trial was instituted. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies reached a settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-01049 before trial. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement that terminated the IPR challenge to patent 11,687,971 before any institution decision. The Board granted the joint motion and kept the settlement confidential.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung Electronics and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR dispute before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and treated the settlement agreement as confidential. The proceeding was terminated with no merits decided.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR disputes, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before any trial was instituted.
Tesla, Inc. v.Graphite Charging Company LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by either anticipation (Cooley) or obviousness (Wang/AESO Report). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's claim construction of 'current' as referring to the present, rejecting the petitioner's interpretation.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Board issued a final written decision finding that the challenged claims were not unpatentable. The Board upheld the patent owner's position regarding priority and found that the specification adequately supported the combination of Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer.
Microsoft Corporation et al. v.InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. et al.
The Board upheld the validity of patent 9173054 after finding that the priority date (December 22, 2009) disqualified all cited prior art under Sections 102 and 103. The Patent Owner successfully argued that the ancestor application sufficiently described both Bluetooth detection and Wi-Fi data transfer methods.
Ericsson Inc. et al. v.XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting the petitioner's contentions that the patent was unpatentable over Agee or in combination with Butler. The Board found Petitioner failed to meet its burden of proof, specifically regarding how prior art disclosed critical signal processing limitations.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding the claims patentable over the cited prior art. The Petitioner (Apple Inc.) failed to demonstrate that combining Ramos Paper, Ramos Video, and Ording would teach a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art how to implement the claimed translucent virtual display layer widget overlaying image content.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB found that the combination of Hackborn's live wallpaper concept with Westerman's gesture recognition methods rendered several claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Specifically, Claims 1 and 23 were deemed unpatentable based on this combination.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding 59 claims of the '758 patent unpatentable based primarily on obviousness (103) over Chaudhri, Martyn, and Griffin. The Board found sufficient motivation to combine these prior art references to teach numerous claimed features in the touch interface technology.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies unpatentable over the combination of Hotelling, Martyn, and Cho. The Board adopted a specific definition for POSITA, requiring computer science expertise with professional GUI experience.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that the claims were not unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board affirmed the Patent Owner's causal interpretation of 'when,' requiring all listed conditions to be met for functions to execute, and rejected obviousness arguments based on insufficient causal links in the prior art combination.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision on the IPR, finding claims 30 and 62 unpatentable while upholding the patentability of claims 1, 32, 34, and 64. The Board clarified that 'the gesture' must refer to a single input with a common starting point, rejecting the Petitioner’s argument for multiple gestures.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the Petitioner's arguments that Smith Interface Technologies' claims were obvious. The Board found no persuasive evidence in the prior art combination to support the claimed progressive blurring or menu appearance during gesture detection.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the petitioner's obviousness challenges against numerous claims of Smith Interface Technologies. The Board found that the asserted prior art combinations (Ahn and Chaudhri) failed to teach the specific functional limitations required by the patent claims, particularly regarding progressive gesture-based display transitions.
Apple Inc. v.Smith Interface Technologies, LLC
The PTAB issued a final written decision finding that the challenged claims were not obvious over the asserted prior art combinations. The Board specifically rejected arguments regarding progressive menu sliding during gesture detection.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB found several claims of the patent unpatentable over prior art references Ingle and Hasei. The Board adopted a narrow claim construction for 'a first trench,' requiring adjacency to conductive layer edges. This decision significantly reduces the scope of the asserted claims in OLED manufacturing technology.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The Petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over multiple combinations of prior art references for several claims related to OLED encapsulation methods. The Board adopted the parties' agreed-upon construction for 'planarization layer,' which focused on interrupting defect propagation. Claims 34–37 and 40–46 were ultimately found unpatentable.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of U.S. Patent 6,949,389 unpatentable. The Board rejected the obviousness arguments based on Kijima and Suzuki, emphasizing that the prior art did not meet the agreed-upon definition of 'planarization layer' which requires suppressing underlying topography.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully navigated a discretionary denial challenge in the IPR, leading to the institution of claims 34-46. The Board found that the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success based on Yamazaki/Fujimori combinations for OLED encapsulation technology.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al. v.Pictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display successfully challenged Pictiva Displays' patent claims in an IPR proceeding, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds. The Board found that combinations of prior art references were sufficient to invalidate several key display technology claims.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR petition, finding a reasonable likelihood of invalidity over Niikawa and Enomoto. The Board preliminarily construed 'database' to have its plain meaning, rejecting the patent owner's attempt to limit it to updatable systems.
Nikon Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB granted institution of trial in this IPR concerning digital camera image processing and aberration correction. The Board found sufficient likelihood of unpatentability based on obviousness arguments combining prior art references (Niikawa and Enomoto).
FUJIFILM Corporation et al. v.Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC
The PTAB instituted the IPR on all 30 challenged claims for FUJIFILM Corporation et al. against Optimum Imaging Technologies LLC, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability over Sarbadhikari and Katagiri. The decision was based on Petitioner's diligent filing and favorable factors regarding parallel district court litigation despite Patent Owner arguments to the contrary.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Mullen Industries LLC
Samsung Electronics successfully petitioned to invalidate Mullen Industries' patent (11190633) covering wearable device notifications, leading the PTAB to institute IPR proceedings. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of obviousness across five grounds using combinations of prior art like Narayanaswami and Kita 514.
Apple Inc. v.Haptic, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Haptic, Inc.'s patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board cited advanced progress and investment in parallel civil litigation as the primary reason for denying institution.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.