Sensors and motion detection — US PTAB Patent Cases
6 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 6 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s institution of an IPR against CM HK’s sensor‑fusion patent. The petition alleges institutional error due to unresolved claim construction, improper reliance on expert testimony, and failure to identify material error in prior‑art translation.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of CM HK’s 11,698,687 patent covering a 3‑D pointing device. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Bassompiere prior art and lack written‑description support for quaternion‑based algorithms.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.American GNC Corporation
Nintendo’s IPR against American GNC’s 6,671,648 patent was denied. The Board upheld its finding that claims 1 and 4 are obvious over Smith and Tingleff references, and rejected Nintendo’s secondary‑consideration and real‑party‑in‑interest arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung responded to the Patent Owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that the Board correctly found no inconsistency in claim positions, that construction was unnecessary, and that expert testimony was explanatory. The Director’s denial of discretionary review under § 325(d) is upheld.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung’s petition to deny the patent owner’s request for Director Review was successful. The Board upheld the institution and found no error in the earlier decision, keeping the IPR proceeding alive.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.CM HK LIMITED
Samsung petitions the Director to vacate the Board’s institution decision for U.S. Patent 10,852,846, arguing the Board failed to construe a key term and improperly relied on expert testimony. The Patent Owner seeks discretionary denial, asserting the Board’s errors undermine claim‑construction consistency.
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.