Short Summary
Samsung Electronics, its U.S. affiliate and Harman reached a settlement with Staton Techiya over U.S. Patent 11,610,587 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00559, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Harman International Industries, Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,610,587 after reaching a settlement with patent owner Staton Techiya LLC. Citing the statutory requirement of a joint termination request under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and emphasizing public‑policy reasons favoring settlement, the parties argue that the Board has not yet decided the merits and that termination will conserve resources and encourage future settlements. The motion includes a confidential settlement agreement and requests that it be treated as business‑confidential information per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).
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 Staton Techiya LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company et al.vsIntellectual Ventures II
Liberty Mutual and patent‑owner Intellectual Ventures have jointly moved to terminate IPR2025‑00202 after settling their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,332,844.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Samsung successfully challenged claim 16 of Netlist’s ’912 memory‑module patent, with the PTAB finding the claim obvious over the Ellsberry reference and unpatentable.
Revvo Technologies, Inc.vsTire Stickers LLC et al.
Revvo Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Tire Stickers’ ’027 patent covering display assemblies for vulcanized rubber articles, asserting that all 18 challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art patches and commercial brochures.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al.vsGenzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta has filed an IPR petition challenging Genzyme’s 7,704,721 AAV vector patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art purification methods. The petition cites Auricchio, Konz, Potter and related references to support its grounds.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
In IPR2020‑01207, the PTAB held that Samsung’s challenger proved that 11 of the 14 asserted claims of the ’395 patent are anticipated by the prior‑art Grupp ’483 reference, rendering them unpatentable, while three claims remained patent‑eligible.
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.