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
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck has filed a post‑grant review petition challenging Halozyme’s patent on modified PH20 hyaluronidase enzymes, arguing the claims lack adequate written description and enablement. The petition cites extensive expert analysis and prior‑art exhibits to show undue experimentation would be required to identify the claimed mutants.
Nokia of America Corp.vsAdaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate an IPR concerning U.S. Patent 7,991,122. The PTAB granted the motion and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential, ending the proceeding before trial.
Askeladden L.L.C.vs--
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for U.S. Patent 7,480,637 against Jabaa L.L.C., finding Askeladden L.L.C. showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on claims related to biometric authentication.
Activision Blizzard, Inc.vsMilestone Entertainment, LLC
Milestone Entertainment filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Activision Blizzard’s IPR petition on the 11,501,607 gaming patent. The owner contends the cited prior art does not disclose key claim elements and that one reference is not prior art. The Board is asked to reject institution.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Petitioners and Birchtech Corp. have settled their disputes over U.S. Patent 10,933,370, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR for IPL and WPL. The Board is asked to dismiss those parties under 35 U.S.C. §317.
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.