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
Ford Motor CompanyvsAutoConnect Holdings LLC
Ford Motor Company has filed an IPR petition challenging AutoConnect’s U.S. 9,082,239 vehicle‑infotainment patent, asserting that all 35 claims are obvious over existing vehicle‑technology disclosures.
National Beef Packing Company, LLCvsInstitute for Environmental Health, Inc.
National Beef and Institute for Environmental Health settled four inter partes reviews covering patents 7,534,584; 8,822,143; 9,637,771; and 9,845,486. The Board terminated the proceedings based on a written settlement agreement and granted confidentiality for the agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging XiFi’s U.S. Patent 12,190,198 covering multi‑transceiver Wi‑Fi 7 bandwidth allocation. The petition asserts obviousness, patent‑ineligible abstract idea, lack of written description, and indefiniteness. The PTAB has yet to act on the petition.
Entegris, Inc.vsInpria Corporation
Entegris and Inpria have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,673,903 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board had previously instituted the proceeding but no merits were decided.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.
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.