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
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging Apex Beam’s 20‑claim LTE‑MIMO patent, arguing the claims are obvious over three prior references. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of all claims.
Databricks, Inc.vsByteWeavr LLC
Databricks and ByteWeavr have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 6,839,733 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The motion cites the early stage of the proceeding and lack of opposition as grounds for termination.
Cipla LimitedvsGilead Sciences, Inc.
The PTAB denied Cipla Limited's IPR petition against Gilead Sciences regarding patent 11,744,802, citing the advanced stage of parallel district court litigation and lack of compelling merits.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple, on behalf of Samsung, has filed an IPR petition challenging Omni MedSci’s ’533 wearable health‑monitoring patent. The petition asserts that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Lisogurski, Carlson, and Mannheimer and requests that the Board institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsXiFi Networks R&D, Inc.
Samsung has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking to invalidate 29 claims of XiFi’s U.S. Pat. 12,250,564, alleging obviousness, patent‑ineligibility, lack of written description, and indefiniteness.
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.