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
Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al.vsZiklag IP LLC
Amazon Web Services has filed an IPR petition challenging 12 claims of a 2001 music‑distribution patent, asserting that the claims are obvious in view of earlier cable‑distribution patents (Yurt and Logan). The petition seeks cancellation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103.
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. et al.vsStellar, LLC
Motorola Solutions challenged Stellar LLC's '882 patent in a petition for review, asserting that the core features of surveillance video recording systems are obvious in light of existing prior art. The petitioner argues that combining references like Yerazunis with Fiore renders claims related to loop recording and file-based indexing unpatentable.
STARA S.A.-INDÚSTRIA DE IMPLEMENTOS AGRÃCOLASvsAGCO Corporation
The USPTO denied STARA’s request for Director Review of the decision that refused to institute an IPR against AGCO’s farm‑equipment patent (US 11,665,989). The institution denial therefore remains in effect.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitnet, LLC
The PTAB issued a final decision finding all 20 claims of the patent unpatentable over a combination of Burfeind and Crowley. The Board adopted the petitioner's argument that the challenged claims were obvious, specifically noting that Crowley provided motivation to integrate location-based features into Burfeind's event management system.
Integrated DNA Technologies, Inc. et al.vsTecan Group AG
Tecan Genomics filed a comprehensive set of objections to Integrated DNA Technologies’ evidentiary exhibits in IPR2024‑01504, citing multiple FRE rules to block hearsay, irrelevant, and unauthenticated material. The objections were timely filed after the institution decision.
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.