Executive Summary
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their inter partes review of U.S. Patent 10,244,284 B2, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before a trial was instituted.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in LG Electronics, Inc. et al. vs Maxell, LTD. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
AT&T Corp. et al.vsDaingean Technologies Ltd.
The PTAB granted the Patent Owner's revised motion to amend claims 7 and 8, replacing original claims 1-4. The Board found that these substitute claims did not introduce new matter or enlarge the scope of the patent, successfully defeating the Petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments.
Apple Inc.vs--
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Proxense’s ’042 patent covering RFID‑enabled hybrid devices, arguing that all asserted claims are obvious over prior art such as Dua and Buer and requesting the Board to institute the review and cancel the claims.
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of U.S. Patent 7,804,891, alleging obviousness over a combination of cellular‑standard prior art. The petition argues the examiner missed critical references and that discretionary denial factors do not apply.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Zaxcom’s 9,336,307 patent, arguing that prior‑art systems render the claims anticipated or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
American Fuji Seal, Inc. et al.vsBrook & Whittle Ltd.
American Fuji Seal has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Brook + Whittle’s 2024 recyclable shrink label patent, asserting obviousness over Schurr and over Kitano combined with Lee.
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.