Short Summary
Samsung, Google and Cerence have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,081,993, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The Board has been asked to dismiss the proceeding based on the settlement.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00979 concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,081,993, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Google LLC, and Cerence Operating Company have reached a settlement that resolves all claims related to the patent, including related district‑court litigation. The parties jointly filed a motion to terminate the proceeding, citing the settlement, the early stage of the IPR, and the lack of a response from the patent owner as reasons for dismissal. The motion also references a similar settlement for a related patent (U.S. Patent No. 7,395,078) and a concurrent joint motion to terminate that IPR (IPR2024-00978).
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 Cerence Operating Company et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Biofrontera Incorporated et al.vsSun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.
Biofrontera has filed an IPR petition challenging Sun Pharmaceutical’s U.S. Patent 11,697,028 covering photodynamic therapy illumination devices, asserting obviousness over Lundahl, Larsen, and Bansal references.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
In an IPR, the PTAB held that all nine claims of Inari Medical’s hemostasis valve patent are unpatentable under §§102 and 103, finding the petitioner’s anticipation and obviousness arguments persuasive.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsFour Batons Wireless, LLC
The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four IPRs, including the case involving Four Batons Wireless’s patent 8,798,006. The denial leaves the original institution decisions intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsCerence Operating Company
Samsung has filed a request for Director Review, arguing that the PTAB director improperly denied institution of its IPR against Cerence’s in‑car voice‑assistant patent. The petition cites misuse of Fintiv factors, unsupported settled‑expectations claims, and a failure to meet §314(c) notice requirements.
Ascentcare Dental Products, Inc.vsSolmetex, LLC
The PTAB denied Ascentcare Dental Products' IPR petition against Solmetex, LLC's dental device patent due to procedural timing issues. The Board found the patent was a post-AIA patent and the petition was filed too early.
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.