Executive Summary
Headwater Research filed a response to Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial of institution. The patent owner argues the Vidal Memo recission was proper, the change‑in‑position doctrine does not apply, and discretionary denial is statutorily authorized.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsRadian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung and Radian Memory Systems have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01289 after reaching a confidential settlement. The motion cites public policy and efficiency reasons for early termination.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al.vsRavenWhite Security, Inc.
Home Depot petitions the PTAB to invalidate all ten claims of RavenWhite’s ’823 patent, asserting obviousness over Hinton and Varghese prior art and arguing that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.vsGreenthread, LLC
Monolithic Power Systems successfully obtained institution of an IPR against Greenthread’s 9,190,502 patent covering graded‑dopant semiconductor devices. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on claims 7 and 8 based on obviousness over Onoda, Nishizawa, and Kawagoe. The proceeding now moves to trial.
Stingray Group Inc. et al.vsHernandez-Mondragon, Edwin et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stingray Group against Hernandez-Mondragon, focusing on multimedia streaming patents. The Board found the Petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on unpatentability grounds.
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.vsSKYWORKS SOLUTIONS, INC.
Kangxi Communication Technologies challenged SKYWORKS SOLUTIONS' RF switch system patent (9148194) at the PTAB, arguing obviousness over prior art references Huang and Seshimo. The Board granted institution because the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims 1-11 based on the Huang reference. This moves the dispute into the trial phase.
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.