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
ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATIONvsWorcester Polytechnic Institute
Zepp Health petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR and invalidate all 20 claims of Worcester Polytechnic’s ‘362 patent covering PPG motion‑artifact detection, citing obviousness over Chon ‘947, Mollerus, and Simon. The petitioner also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate under §314(a) and §325(d).
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB terminated the IPRs against MidAmerican Energy Company after a settlement with BirchTech, leaving the case open only against PacifiCorp.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.vsMES, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Union Electric's request for review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the challenge to patent 10,668,430. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
Google LLCvsTelcom Ventures LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Telcom Ventures' smartphone payment patent, alleging obviousness over four prior art references.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC petitions the PTAB to invalidate 27 claims of a semiconductor interconnect patent, asserting that dummy‑via and dual‑damascene technologies were already disclosed in multiple prior‑art references. The petition targets claims covering dummy structures, dimensions, and interconnect layouts.
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.