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
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-8 of the patent were unpatentable. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that the MSI-H Study Record (MSR) anticipates and renders obvious most challenged claims under both § 102 and § 103. The Board ruled that the Patent Owner's objective evidence of non-obviousness was insufficient to overcome these findings.
Dell Technologies Inc. et al.vsCloud Byte LLC
Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cloud Byte's U.S. Patent 9,651,320 covering server‑cooling fan control. The petition relies on a combination of prior art (Sato, Nakamura, Jin) to argue obviousness under §103.
Caihong Display Devices Co., Ltd.vsCorning Incorporated
Caihong Display Devices has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 11 claims of Corning’s 8,640,498 glass‑substrate patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness over seven prior‑art references.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsCOGMEDIA LLC
Meta Platforms has filed a petition to invalidate Cogmedia’s ’562 patent covering social‑card interfaces, asserting that the claims are obvious over a suite of earlier patents. The petition challenges 14 claims and seeks institution of the IPR.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple successfully petitioned to institute IPR against Apex Beam Technologies, challenging 20 claims of the '110 patent related to multi-antenna transmission. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on obviousness grounds.
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.