Short Summary
In IPR2020‑01207, the PTAB held that Samsung’s challenger proved that 11 of the 14 asserted claims of the ’395 patent are anticipated by the prior‑art Grupp ’483 reference, rendering them unpatentable, while three claims remained patent‑eligible.
Detailed Summary
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2020‑01207 concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,090,395 B2, which covers a process for depinning the Fermi level at metal‑semiconductor junctions. Samsung Electronics (petitioner) challenged claims 1‑6, 8‑12, and 14‑16. The Board found that the prior‑art Grupp ’483 reference anticipates the limitations of claims 1‑6, 8‑10, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b), making those claims unpatentable. The petitioner could not establish lack of written description or enablement for claims 11, 12, and 14, so those claims were upheld. The Board also construed “specific contact resistivity” and “specific contact resistance” as interchangeable. The motion to exclude the patent owner’s expert testimony was dismissed as moot.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al. vs OAK IP LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Ciena CorporationvsK.Mizra LLC
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01364 after determining the petitioner had a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim.
Bose CorporationvsIngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, limiting public access to the terms.
Precision Cancer Technologies Inc.vsOncoustics Inc.
Court decision.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG, Mercedes-Benz AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz seeks cancellation of all 18 claims of U.S. Patent 9,493,149, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary factors favor institution.
Apple Inc.vs--
Apple moved to terminate IPR2025-00600 after a reexamination cancelled all claims of the 10,698,989 patent. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding before institution.
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.