Short Summary
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s request for rehearing was denied after the PTAB initially denied institution of IPR against SK nexilis Co., Ltd.'s copper foil patent, upholding the finding that obviousness claims lacked sufficient evidence.
Detailed Summary
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd.'s Request for Rehearing regarding the denial of institution of Inter Partes Review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 10,811,689 B2. The Board affirmed its original decision that the Petitioner failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of obviousness over combinations of prior art references (Shinozaki, Khatibi, Toshio, Kim, Griesi). The denial was based on the finding that the Petitioner's supporting evidence, particularly Dr. Randall’s testimony, was often conclusory and lacked adequate objective support for meeting specific claim limitations.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al. vs SK nexilis Co., Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have jointly filed a request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory protection, arguing it contains highly sensitive business information. The request seeks Board order to treat the agreement as business confidential information and limit its disclosure.
Ciena CorporationvsK.Mizra LLC
Ciena’s request for Director Review of a denied inter‑partes review is opposed by K.Mizra, which argues that the Director’s decision is discretionary and non‑reviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The response cites Supreme Court precedent to show the petition lacks merit.
SHENZHEN QIANFENYI INTELLIGENT TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.vsWacom Co. Ltd.
Shenzhen Qianfenyi petitions the PTAB to invalidate Wacom’s 2018 stylus patent, asserting that its tilt‑detection claims are obvious over prior‑art Yoshida combined with either Ikeda or Iguchi. The petition lists two 35 U.S.C. §103 grounds covering 21 claims.
Google LLCvsAccuSearch Technologies LLC
Google filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 26 claims of AccuSearch’s search‑result annotation patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition maps each claim group to combinations of Bates, Bhagat, Naick, Brinson, Mehta, Wang and Mills. The Board is asked to institute the review and invalidate the patent.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged all twenty claims of SitNet’s ’682 patent covering a situational network and roll‑call system. The Board held the claims obvious over the Burfeind and Crowley references under 35 U.S.C. §103. No claim construction was required.
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.