Short Summary
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against ArcelorMittal's patent, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 25 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of obviousness (103) involving various prior art combinations.
Detailed Summary
POSCO Co., Ltd. successfully convinced the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute an Inter Partes Review against ArcelorMittal's patent (No. 11326227). The petitioner asserted multiple grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), utilizing diverse combinations of prior art references such as Takagi, Cornette, Suehiro, Laurent, Vaissiere, and GMW14400. Specifically regarding the hot stamping process and multi-layered coating structure, the Board accepted that the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the claimed limitations were taught or suggested by the cited references, leading to the institution of the review on all 25 claims at issue.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. vs ArcelorMittal is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
REC Solar Holdings AS et al.vsMaxeon Solar PTE. Ltd.
REC Solar Holdings has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 9‑20 of Maxeon’s 8,878,053 solar‑cell patent, asserting obviousness over prior art such as Froitzheim, Gan, Kwark and related publications.
TESLA, INC.vsiQar Inc.
Tesla, Inc. has filed a Petition challenging 17 claims of iQar Inc.'s patent (US 10,829,002) in the PTAB. The challenge asserts that the claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references, including Kudo-325 and Kudo-066.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.vsNivagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Nivagen successfully opposes Sun Pharmaceutical’s request for a Director review of the institution denial, arguing that Sun raised new issues and failed to meet the rehearing standard. The Board affirms the Acting Director’s discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to institute an IPR against Marlin Semiconductor’s ’747 patent covering FET manufacturing methods. They argue the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Intel Corporation et al.vsUSTA Technology, LLC
Intel and Lenovo have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate claims 53 and 95 of USTA Technology’s RE47,720 patent, arguing obviousness based on a combination of prior‑art references covering OFDM/MIMO techniques.
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.