Executive 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).
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
Nokia of America Corporation et al.vsWoodbury Wireless, LLC
Nokia, AT&T and T‑Mobile have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Woodbury Wireless’s ’930 MIMO patent, arguing the claims are obvious over the Lastinger and Gore references.
Apple Inc.vsMyPort Technologies, Inc.
MyPort’s preliminary response argues that Apple’s IPR petition fails to show a single device capturing both location and time data, violating the particularity requirement. The patent owner seeks denial of institution.
BOE TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO., LTD.vsBishop Display Tech LLC
BOE Technology Group petitions the PTAB to invalidate ten claims of Bishop Display Tech’s OLED driver patent, asserting that prior art references Baek, Date, Inomoto, and Sasaki anticipate or render the claims obvious. The petition argues the examiner overlooked these references and that no secondary considerations support patentability.
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbHvsEllodi Pharmaceuticals LP
Dr. Falk Pharma GmbH successfully secured the institution of IPR against Ellodi Pharmaceuticals LP regarding patent 9,486,407. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that prior art (Dohil) renders Claim 35 obvious.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsStaton Techiya, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a Petition challenging Staton Techiya's patent (11710473) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenger argues that the claimed audio processing and ambient sound control features are merely combinations of prior art teachings from Kirsch, DiCenso, Goldstein, and Woodruff. This challenge targets a broad range of claims related to earpiece functionality.
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.