Short Summary
Samsung Electronics filed an IPR petition against iCashe’s mobile‑payment patent 11,270,174. The supporting declaration authenticates numerous prior‑art patents and applications that Samsung relies on to challenge the patent’s claims.
Detailed Summary
In an Inter Partes Review petition, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,270,174 owned by iCashe, Inc. The petition is supported by a declaration from Cheryl Sloane, IP Paralegal Manager at Ropes & Gray LLP, affirming that all attached exhibits—including a suite of prior‑art patents and applications related to mobile payment technologies—are true and correct copies. The declaration, made under penalty of perjury, seeks to establish the credibility of the prior art references that Samsung will argue render the asserted claims unpatentable. No substantive Board decision is reflected in this document; it merely serves to substantiate the petition’s evidentiary foundation.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. vs iCashe, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsGeorgia Tech Research Corporation
The USPTO Director denied Murata Manufacturing’s request for review of the PTAB’s decision not to institute an IPR against Georgia Tech’s patent. The denial hinged on untimely filing and discovery burdens.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and The Phelan Group jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and to terminate the IPR. The request emphasizes the agreement’s sensitive business terms.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.vs138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group has filed a petition to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,512, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art LCD driver references. Six obviousness grounds are presented, each tying specific claim groups to the teachings of Saito, Her, Taguchi, and Kim.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’682 patent covering situational networks. The PTAB found all 20 claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art references Burfeind and Crowley. The patent owner did not respond, leaving the petitioner’s arguments unopposed.
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd. et al.vsGeorgia Tech Research Corporation
Murata seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that denied institution of an IPR against its high‑Q passive RF component patent, alleging procedural errors, an erroneous priority claim, and misuse of the new “settled expectations” factor.
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.