Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. W&Wsens Devices Inc.

PGR2025-00082

The PTAB granted institution for PGR2025-00082 after reviewing discretionary and non-discretionary considerations. The petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing or that the challenged claims are unpatentable.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
PGR2025-00082
Filing Date
28 August 2025
Outcome
instituted

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 W&Wsens Devices Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00116

Abbott Laboratories et al.vsMIRACOR MEDICAL SA

Abbott Laboratories challenged MIRACOR MEDICAL SA's heart assist pump patent (11754077) on grounds of obviousness over Wampler and Bourque. The PTAB instituted the IPR, affirming plain meanings for key terms like 'magneto coupling,' while finding Petitioner's rationale persuasive regarding combination art.

patentIPR2024-00600

MediaTek Inc. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.

MediaTek successfully secured institution at the PTAB against MOSAID Technologies regarding integrated circuit patents related to power management. The Board accepted Petitioner's showing of reasonable likelihood that claims are unpatentable over prior art references, including Takahashi and Mizuno.

patentIPR2024-00556

Valve CorporationvsImmersion Corporation

Valve Corporation challenged Immersion Corporation's patent claims in a PTAB Petition, arguing that combinations of prior art references render the technology obvious. The petitioner focused on combining Astala/Shahoian for gesture recognition and Keely/Kolmykov-Zotov for pressure determination techniques.

patentIPR2024-01069

Luxottica of America Inc. et al.vsE-Vision Optics, LLC

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 21 challenged claims of the electronic eyewear system unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining prior art references, such as Howell-719 and Sikonowiz, rendered the claimed invention obvious across various claim sets.

patentIPR2024-00459

Geneoscopy, Inc.vsExact Sciences Corporation

The PTAB found all 20 claims of the '11634781 patent unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board concluded that combining prior art references, specifically Lenhard, Vilkin, and Itzkowitz, taught or suggested every element of independent claim 1 with a reasonable expectation of success. This decision rejects the Patent Owner's arguments regarding lack of motivation to combine the cited art.

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