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
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsLionra Technologies Limited
Lionra Technologies has filed a Director Review request challenging the PTAB’s finding that its dynamic ACL patent claims are obvious. The company alleges procedural violations and improper claim construction based on a late‑filed dictionary definition.
CommScope Technologies LLC et al.vsBelden Canada ULC et al.
CommScope Technologies LLC successfully petitioned to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,435,542 B2 before the PTAB, leading to institution of trial. The petition asserted grounds of anticipation (102) and obviousness (103) over prior art references Fukui, Sauter, and Sedor.
BTL Industries, Inc.vsInMode Ltd.
ThermiGen settled its patent infringement lawsuit with Viveve Medical, securing a non‑exclusive license and agreeing to pay royalties. The settlement resolves the 2016 litigation and allows Thermi to continue developing its temperature‑controlled RF platforms for women's intimate health.
SAP America, Inc. et al.vsCyandia, Inc.
The USPTO denied SAP America’s request for director review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Cyandia’s patent 8,751,948. The order affirms the earlier denial of institution.
Ewald Dorken AGvsSchaeffler Technologies AG & Co. KG et al.
The PTAB denied Ewald Dorken AG's IPR challenge against Schaeffler Technologies regarding wheel bearing coating patents. The Board found the petition failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, citing insufficient mapping and lack of explicit disclosure for key limitations like 'zinc flake coating.'
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.