Short Summary
Samsung and SiOnyx jointly moved to terminate IPR2024‑01431 after reaching a settlement, also requesting the settlement documents be kept confidential.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024‑01431 concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,069,737, Samsung Electronics filed a petition that was instituted by the Board on April 10, 2025. The parties subsequently entered into a license agreement with RPX and a settlement agreement on May 23, 2025. Citing 35 U.S.C. §317(a) and public‑policy considerations, Samsung and SiOnyx filed a joint motion on June 23, 2025 to terminate the inter partes review and to have the settlement agreement treated as business‑confidential information under §317(b) and 37 C.F.R. §42.74(c). The Board authorized the filings, effectively ending the proceeding.
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 SiOnyx, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al.vsPegasus Wireless Innovation LLC
The PTAB denied the Director Review requests for several IPRs, including the challenge to Pegasus Wireless Innovation's patent 10,181,931, leaving the earlier institution denials in place.
Kubota North America Corporation et al.vsVermeer Manufacturing Company
Kubota North America Corporation successfully petitioned for institution in an IPR against Vermeer Manufacturing Company's '386 patent, asserting grounds of obviousness (103) and novelty (102). The Board found that the petitioner's arguments regarding prior art combinations were persuasive enough to overcome the Patent Owner's request for discretionary denial.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsXtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando seek to invalidate XtreamEdge’s network‑optimization patent, but the patent owners argue the cited prior art fails to disclose a key bandwidth limitation, prompting a request for discretionary denial of institution.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Inari Medical’s 11,844,921 B2 hemostasis valve patent after Imperative Care showed a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple claims. The dispute centers on the definition of “filament” and reliance on prior art Schaffer, Hartley, and Eller.
Accord BioPharma, Inc. et al.vsJanssen Biotech, Inc. et al.
Accord BioPharma petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims 1‑7 of Janssen’s anti‑TNF antibody patent, asserting anticipation and obviousness based on Janssen’s own clinical‑trial data and FDA‑approved labeling.
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.