Short Summary
Samsung and Google successfully oppose Headwater Research’s untimely Director Review request, leaving the PTAB’s finding that the ’733 patent’s claims are unpatentable intact.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00341, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all claims of Headwater Research’s ’733 patent unpatentable under both express disclosure and obviousness theories. Headwater later filed a Director Review request, arguing procedural and substantive errors, but the request was filed more than a year after the institution decision deadline and raised arguments that had been waived. The petitioners, Samsung and Google, argued that the request was untimely and that the Board’s findings were correct. The Board’s response urges denial of the request, emphasizing the procedural defaults and the applicability of the existing decision.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. vs Headwater Research LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of Maxell’s ’646 patent, arguing that the claimed smartphone remote‑control features are obvious over prior‑art devices such as Esaka, Guihot, Bandyopadhyay and Sharif‑Ahmadi.
ToughBuilt Industries, Inc.vsMeridian International Co. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01461 after determining the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable.
Maplebear Inc. d/b/a InstacartvsFall Line Patents, LLC
Instacart’s challenger Maplebear has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 3, 4 and 6‑15 of the ’748 data‑management patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier IPRs.
GUANGZHOU EKO TRADING DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD et al.vsNine Stars Group (U.S.A.) Inc. et al.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01369 after reviewing the merits, finding that the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim.
Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Maxell’s 10,176,848 patent succeeded. All seven challenged claims—including those covering face‑recognition‑based chapter selection and a recording‑reproducing mode—were found obvious over Nozaki, Haitani, Graham and Kim.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.