Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Maxell, Ltd.

IPR2024-00828

The PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (103), primarily based on the combination of Rogers and Rosenberg. The Board rejected the Patent Owner's attempt to narrow claim language regarding 'registering modes,' holding that they are input modes within a single operating mode.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00828
Judge(s)
NEIL T. POWELL, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KEVIN C. TROCK
Decision Date
26 April 2024

Detailed Summary

In this final decision, the PTAB determined that all 12 challenged claims were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board conducted extensive claim construction, ultimately finding that terms like 'first registering mode' and 'second registering mode' are not distinct operational states but rather input modes provided within a single 'registering mode.' This intrinsic evidence supported the Petitioner's argument that independent Claim 1 is obvious over Rogers and Rosenberg. Furthermore, the Board found sufficient motivation to combine various prior art references (Rogers, Rosenberg, Miyazawa, Rekimoto) for all challenged claims, confirming the unpatentability of the patent in question.

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 Maxell, Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00434

Comcast Corporation et al.vsEntropic Communications LLC

The PTAB denied Comcast's request to institute IPR against Entropic's wideband tuner patent (9210362) because the petitioner had filed a parallel petition on the same claims.

patentIPR2024-01012

LG Energy Solution, Ltd.vsMolecular Rebar Design, LLC

LG Energy Solution initiated an IPR challenge against Molecular Rebar Design, LLC regarding patents covering battery/electrolyte materials utilizing nanotubes. The core dispute centers on whether the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references like Bosnyak-392 and Son. Petitioner argues that a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would have been motivated to make these claimed innovations.

patentIPR2025-00581

Apple Inc.vsImberaTek, LLC

Apple and ImberaTek have filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR over U.S. Patent 8,368,201 after reaching a settlement. The Board is asked to dismiss the pre‑institution proceeding on good‑cause grounds.

patentIPR2026-00285

Medtronic, Inc.vsMoskowitz Family LLC

Medtronic has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims of U.S. Patent 10,603,183 covering spinal intervertebral cage devices. The challenger alleges obviousness over prior art references Moskowitz 440, Waugh, and Michelson 019 and argues a priority-chain error that renders the references prior art under §102(b).

patentIPR2026-00118

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetwork-1 Technologies, Inc.

Samsung’s petition to invalidate Network‑1’s eSIM provisioning patent is met with a detailed preliminary response asserting examiner approval, lack of teaching in the cited references, and a valid priority claim. The patent owner urges the Board to deny the IPR.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call