Short Summary
Wilus sought leave to address recent director‑review decisions and submit new evidence in five IPRs, but the Director denied the request, citing policy against inconsistent claim constructions and statutory timing constraints.
Detailed Summary
In an exhibit filing, Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology requested the PTAB Director’s permission to address the implications of recent director‑review decisions in Revvo and Tesla, and to submit additional evidence concerning Samsung’s claim‑construction positions in pending district‑court litigation. Wilus argued that allowing Samsung to postpone director review until after the Markman hearing would enable contradictory legal theories across forums and would breach the three‑month institution deadline set by 35 U.S.C. § 314(b). The Director denied the request, emphasizing the Board’s policy for consistent claim constructions and statutory timing requirements.
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 Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Skechers U.S.A., Inc.vsNike, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR petition filed by Skechers against Nike, finding the claims lacked reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on obviousness grounds (103). The Board adopted the Patent Owner's narrow construction of 'article of footwear,' which was critical to the denial.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron's request for Director Review of IPR2024-00794 was dismissed after Yangtze Memory appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision, leaving the Board without jurisdiction.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical's 11,865,291 patent covering hemostasis valves. The petitioner asserts anticipation and obviousness based on Schaffer and its combinations with Hartley, Eller, and Garrison. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for the Petitioners regarding claims covering flue gas pollutant removal. The Board addressed both anticipation and obviousness grounds, concluding that the combination of prior art references was sufficiently motivated to render the asserted claims unpatentable.
Spotify AB et al.vsTijerino, Manuel
Spotify has filed an IPR petition challenging all 17 claims of U.S. Patent 9,146,925, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art jukebox systems and audio‑processing patents. The petition also argues against a § 314(a) or § 325(d) denial, citing favorable Fintiv factors.
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.