Short Summary
Samsung successfully challenged Maxell’s ’086 patent, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious. The Board relied on a combination of prior‑art references covering touch‑screen input methods.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025‑01307, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. petitioned the PTAB to review claims 1, 2, 4‑7, and 9‑14 of Maxell’s U.S. Patent No. 8,982,086 B2, which relates to an information processing apparatus with a touch panel that distinguishes fingertip and finger‑pad inputs. The Board instituted the review, evaluated claim constructions, and concluded that the asserted prior‑art references—Rogers, Rosenberg, Rekimoto, and Miyazawa—qualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. §103. After finding the Patent Owner’s expert testimony lacking credibility, the Board held that each challenged claim was obvious, rendering all twelve claims unpatentable. The decision is final and binding, with no settlement or further litigation noted.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. vs Maxell, LTD. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy and its affiliates contest the patent owner’s request for a director review of the IPR, arguing the PTAB is the proper forum and that the petitions are timely and unencumbered by third‑party interests.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSiOnyx, LLC
Samsung and SiOnyx have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,905,599 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, requesting the settlement be kept confidential.
Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 21 claims of Headwater's 9,232,403 patent covering a secure MMS-enabled mobile device, arguing obviousness over TS‑23.140, Ogawa, and other references.
Apple Inc.vsSmith Interface Technologies, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Apple’s request for a review of the IPR’s Final Written Decision, leaving the decision against Smith Interface Technologies, LLC in place.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsXtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando seek to invalidate XtreamEdge’s network‑optimization patent, but the patent owners argue the cited prior art fails to disclose a key bandwidth limitation, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.
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.