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
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' ’896 patent covering server‑mediated exchanges between wireless devices. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Perttila, Emmons and Insolia, and seeks institution of the review.
The Integration Group of Americas, Inc.vsSitePro, Inc.
The IPR against SitePro’s patent 11,294,403 was terminated after the parties settled the dispute, including related district‑court litigation, before any trial was instituted.
Wealth, Inc.vs--
Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.
Ascend Elements, Inc.vsDuesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of Duesenfeld’s battery‑recycling patent. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim language.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsMalikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,542,571 B2 before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
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.