Short Summary
Samsung Electronics and Hermes IP Management have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,613,060 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The motion relies on 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and cites public‑policy reasons for settlement.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00953 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,613,060, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a joint motion with Hermes IP Management LLC to terminate the inter partes review. The parties have executed a confidential settlement agreement covering all disputes related to the ’060 patent. Citing 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and relevant practice guidance, they argue that the Board has not yet decided the merits and that termination serves public policy by encouraging settlements and conserving resources. The Board is asked to grant the termination request.
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 Hermes IP Management LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Nikon Corporation et al.vsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Nikon and co‑petitioners seek to invalidate Optimum Imaging’s ’805 patent covering in‑camera image filtration, arguing the claims are obvious over prior art such as Niikawa, Enomoto, Levien, and Yamasaki. The petition requests institution of an IPR and disputes any discretionary denial.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.vsPictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 16 claims of Pictiva's OLED patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Suzuki, Diekmann, Ma, and Lee.
UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.vsMES, Inc.
Union Electric Company requests Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial and force an IPR on MES, Inc.’s ‘225 mercury‑removal patent, arguing the patent is invalid in light of extensive prior art and prior Board findings.
Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
The PTAB institution decision found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the multi-fuel generator patent (10393034). The Board adopted Petitioner's claim construction regarding 'gaseous fuel,' which was critical to establishing obviousness and anticipation grounds.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE Technology and Samsung Display settled IPR2025-01477 before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, keeping the settlement confidential. No claim validity was decided.
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.