Short Summary
The PTAB denied the IPR petition against claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,457,541, finding that the combination of prior art references did not render the copper foil obvious. The Board ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable expectation of success when combining properties from materially different sources.
Detailed Summary
The Petitioner (Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.) sought to invalidate claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,457,541, which relates to copper foil for lithium secondary batteries, alleging obviousness over combinations of prior art references including Kim, Hara, Otsuka, and Ye. The Petitioner argued that combining properties such as texture coefficient ratios, weight deviation, and tensile strength would be predictable in the field. However, the Board ultimately denied the petition, holding that the Petitioner failed to articulate a sufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success for combining disparate properties from different references without resorting to hindsight.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. vs SK nexilis Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Texas Instruments IncorporatedvsParkerVision, Inc.
An email notifies the parties that ParkerVision’s Director Review request in IPR2024‑00934 has been received, allowing Texas Instruments a 15‑page response.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetwork-1 Technologies, Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Network‑1’s U.S. Patent 11,606,204, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references covering mobile authentication and key‑exchange techniques.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 10,877,266, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.
MOTORTECH GmbH et al.vs--
MotorTech and Altronic settled their IPR dispute before trial, resulting in the Board terminating the proceeding and keeping the settlement confidential.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Samsung and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition against Omni MedSci’s 9,651,533 patent, asserting that the dependent claims are obvious over prior art references Lisogurski, Carlson and Tam. They seek institution of the review and a finding of unpatentability under §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.