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
MediaTek Inc. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.
MediaTek Inc. challenges MOSAID Technologies Inc.'s '438 Patent, asserting that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition relies on combining multiple prior art references (Takahashi, Mizuno, Notani) to demonstrate predictability in leakage reduction circuitry.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMassively Broadband LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging all 39 claims of Massively Broadband’s U.S. Patent 10,224,999, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of six prior‑art references.
Snap Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Nokia’s 8,050,321 patent covering video‑frame grouping, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon’s challenges based on MPEG‑1, Kim, and Yagasaki would succeed.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
The USPTO granted institution for IPR2025-01205, allowing the challenge to proceed despite a stay pending related Director Reviews.
Google LLCvsVirtaMove, Corp.
The Director denied Google LLC's request for review of the institution decisions in four IPRs involving VirtaMove's patent, leaving the institution denials in place.
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.