Imaging and display systems — US PTAB Patent Cases
4 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 4 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung challenged EyesMatch’s AR‑mirror patent in an IPR. The PTAB instituted the review, and EyesMatch’s response argues that none of the cited references disclose the claim limitations under the narrow construction obtained in the district court.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned to challenge EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent on virtual mirror/interactive display technology. The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing regarding claim 1, initiating an IPR proceeding against the core claims (1-18).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 18 challenged claims unpatentable over prior art combinations. The Board adopted the District Court's construction of 'mirror tracking mode,' which requires the user to see a reversed reflection at roughly double the distance while maintaining constant size. This decision involved complex obviousness arguments regarding adaptive transformation mapping.
Google LLC et al. v.EyesMatch Ltd.
Google LLC et al. successfully petitioned for institution of IPR against EyesMatch Ltd.'s patent 8982109, challenging claims based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board declined to deny institution despite arguments regarding parallel district court litigation.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.