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
SNAP INC.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Snap Inc. has filed an IPR petition challenging Nokia’s U.S. Patent 7,724,818, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over prior‑art video‑coding references Au, VCEG‑N52 and Sriram.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOuraring, Inc. et al.
The PTAB has instituted the IPR against Ouraring, Inc. et al., finding a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. on multiple grounds of obviousness (103). The institution decision targets 17 claims related to smart rings and biometric monitoring technology.
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.vsViking Arm AS
Stanley Black & Decker and Viking Arm AS settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,554,473 B2. The Board dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Ceva Sante Animal S.A. et al.vsTargan, Inc.
The PTAB decided to institute the IPR challenge against Targan, Inc.'s patent (10806124), finding that the Petitioner presented new and non-cumulative prior art combinations. The case involves poultry production technology, with Ceva Sante Animal S.A. as the petitioner.
Adobe Inc.vsJaffe, Jonathan
Adobe’s IPR on patent 6,757,828 was instituted, with the Board finding claim 1 obvious over Rieger and accepting Adobe’s claim construction. The patent owner’s request for Director review was argued to lack merit.
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.