POSCO Co., Ltd. et al. v. ArcelorMittal

IPR2025-00371

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00371
Judge(s)
Barry L. Grossman, Julia Heaney, Brian D. Range
Decision Date
23 December 2024

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

patentIPR2025-00593

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.

patentIPR2024-00499

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.

patentIPR2025-00893

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).

patentIPR2025-00865

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.

patentIPR2025-00838

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.

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