Short Summary
Google, Samsung, and Microsoft petitioned an IPR on EyesMatch's facial‑recognition patent, but Samsung and EyesMatch have now settled and moved to terminate the proceeding.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00856, Google LLC, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Microsoft Corporation challenged U.S. Patent 8,982,109 owned by EyesMatch Ltd., which relates to facial‑recognition technology. Samsung and EyesMatch subsequently reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to terminate the IPR as to Samsung parties, invoking Board authority to end the case before a Final Written Decision and requesting confidentiality for the settlement. The motion cites relevant statutory provisions and prior Board precedent, and seeks the Board’s approval to close 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 Google LLC et al. vs EyesMatch Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al.vs--
Airwallex and Intercurrency Software settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 before the PTAB could institute an inter partes review. The Board granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw and dismissed the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
CMS CEPCOR LTD et al.vsSandvik Intellectual Property AB et al.
The PTAB cancelled original claims (1-10) but granted substitute claims (11-19) after a Patent Owner's Motion to Amend. The Board found the Petitioner failed to demonstrate motivation to combine prior art references, thus overcoming obviousness challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Google LLCvsMetarail, Inc.
Google has filed a petition for rehearing after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Metarail’s ‘normalized variable data database’ patent. The petitioner contends the Board misread claim scope and that the Belanger‑Halevy combination satisfies the claimed mapping step.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology's IPR petition against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding NAND flash technology was denied by the PTAB. The Board rejected arguments concerning claim scope, specifically finding that 'dummy source structure' must not function as a memory cell source.
Nokia of America Corporation et al.vsIarnach Technologies Limited
Nokia filed a petition challenging claims in the '892 Patent, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenge focuses on combining prior art standards (ITU-T) and publications to demonstrate that claimed power management features are predictable.
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.