Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In a detailed response to Samsung Electronics’ request for rehearing, Headwater Research LLC argues that the PTAB’s recission of the Vidal Memo was proper because the memo constituted an improperly promulgated substantive rule. The patent owner contends that the recission does not violate the change‑in‑position doctrine and that Samsung should have anticipated the possibility of institution being rescinded, thus bearing any prejudice. Moreover, Headwater emphasizes that discretionary denial of institution is expressly authorized by 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and mandated by congressional intent, and that the Board’s guidelines are clear, non‑vague, and constitutionally sound.
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
Google LLCvsSonos, Inc.
The PTAB notified Google and Sonos that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01213. Sonos may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
The IPR against BirchTech’s patent was terminated for MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement, while the proceeding remains open for Berkshire Hathaway Energy and PacificCorp.
Google LLC et al.vsMullen Industries LLC
Google and Samsung petition the PTAB to rehear a Director’s discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-00365 covering Mullen’s 2022 patent. They contend the Board ignored the Vidal Memo’s guidance, misapplied Fintiv factors, and retroactively changed the rules, leaving 92 claims unchallenged in district court.
Askeladden L.L.C.vs--
Askeladden L.L.C. filed an IPR petition challenging claims of Patent 7480637, arguing they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner contends that combining known SSL/TLS protocols with biometric authentication methods yields predictable results. The challenge centers on whether the combination of prior art elements—specifically Rescorla and Mathiassen's technologies—is inventive or merely an obvious modification for a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,736,729 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes 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.