Short Summary
Samsung’s IPR against Wilus has been instituted after the Board granted institution on Feb. 9, 2026. The patent owner’s request for Director Review is argued to be moot, relying on pre‑institution filings and Samsung’s compliance with its Fintiv stipulation.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00933, Samsung Electronics challenged Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology’s U.S. Patent No. 11,470,595. After an initial denial, the Board granted rehearing and subsequently instituted the IPR on February 9, 2026. Wilus filed a request for Director Review of the institution decision, alleging abuse of discretion. Samsung’s authorized response contends the request is moot because Samsung adhered to its Fintiv stipulation, will not pursue the asserted prior‑art combinations in district court, and the request is based solely on pre‑institution filings. The response urges the Director to deny the review and allow the instituted IPR to proceed.
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 Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of SiOnyx’s 9,064,764 light‑trapping image sensor patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEyesMatch Ltd.
EyesMatch Ltd. seeks Director review of a PTAB Final Written Decision that found all claims of its imaging patent unpatentable. The Patent Owner contends Samsung and Google introduced new arguments and prior art in a reply, violating IPR rules and inconsistent claim constructions. The request asks the Director to reverse the decision.
Microsoft CorporationvsDialect, LLC
Microsoft and Dialect reached a confidential settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The Board granted the joint motion and ordered the settlement to remain confidential.
Databricks, Inc.vsByteWeavr, LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00716 after reaching a settlement that also dismissed the related district‑court lawsuit. The Board is asked to grant the termination because the case is at an early stage and unopposed.
Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.
Orca Security Ltd. has filed a petition for inter partes review of Wiz’s U.S. Patent 11,929,896, asserting that claims 1‑29 are obvious over three prior‑art patents. The petition includes a joint claim construction for “imputed entity” and seeks institution of the IPR under 35 U.S.C. §103.
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.