Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. v. SK nexilis Co., Ltd.

IPR2025-00005

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00005
Judge(s)
RAE LYNN P. GUEST, JOHN G. NEW, JO-ANNE M. KOKOSKI
Decision Date
10 April 2024

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

patentPGR2026-00042

Wealth, Inc.vs--

Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.

patentIPR2026-00325

Microsoft CorporationvsQomplx LLC

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.

patentIPR2026-00297

Microsoft CorporationvsToutVirtual, Inc.

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.

patentIPR2026-00187

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGOLDEN EYE TECHNOLOGIES LLC

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 13‑15 of Golden Eye Technologies' 9,717,037 patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over earlier Wi‑Fi standards and patents (Choudhary, Hasty, Chen). The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.

patentIPR2026-00186

Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGolden Eye Technologies LLC

Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 9‑11 of Golden Eye’s ’556 Wi‑Fi scanning patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three earlier patents. The petition emphasizes that the patent was allowed despite acknowledging the same prior‑art concepts.

patentIPR2026-00334

Pinterest, Inc.vs--

Pinterest has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of OpenTV’s ’703 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Orr, Hsu, Lim, and Hervey.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call