Executive Summary
Headwater Research files a response to Samsung’s request for rehearing, defending the PTAB’s denial of institution and the recission of the Vidal Memo. The brief argues that discretionary denial is statutory and that Samsung should have foreseen the rescission.
Related Cases
Innoscience America, Inc. et al.vsInfineon Technologies Americas Corp.
Innoscience seeks to invalidate all 17 claims of Infineon’s 8,686,562 patent covering III‑V semiconductor electrical contacts, arguing they are anticipated or obvious over four prior‑art references.
Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd. successfully convinced the PTAB to institute IPR on all 29 claims of Wiz, Inc.'s patent based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that a combination of Ross, Agarwal, and Biran teaches every limitation of Claim 1, establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability.
Motorola Mobility LLCvsLargan Precision Co., Ltd.
Motorola Mobility LLC's IPR challenge against Largan Precision Co., Ltd.'s optical component patent was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in overcoming obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Toyota Motor Corp. et al.vsEmerging Automotive LLC
Toyota and Kia seek Director Review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of their IPR against Emerging Automotive’s vehicle‑unlocking patent, arguing the Board abused discretion by using its own delay in the Fintiv analysis.
Terumo BCT, Inc.vsHaemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on §§ 102 and 103 and requests that the PTAB institute the review.
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.