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
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied Aylo Freesites Ltd's petition to challenge DISH Technologies L.L.C.'s streaming patent (11991234), citing the unnecessary burden created by a concurrent, comprehensive petition.
Normshield, Inc. d/b/a Black Kite Inc.vsBitSight Technologies, Inc.
Normshield has filed an IPR petition challenging BitSight’s 11,777,976 patent covering methods for generating composite security ratings. The petition asserts obviousness over prior‑art from Tippett and McGovern, supported by extensive public‑domain cybersecurity references.
Nike, Inc.vsSherryWear, LLC
Nike and SherryWear have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,244,800 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al.vsFeit Electric Company, Inc.
The Patent Owner’s request for Director Review of the Board’s denial of its motion to terminate the IPR was rejected as improper under the CFR. The Board cited statutory limits on Director Review authority.
Tesla Inc.vsCharge Fusion Technologies, LLC
Tesla Inc. successfully secured institution in this IPR against Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC for battery charging system claims. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references.
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.