Short Summary
The PTAB denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in four related IPRs concerning Keyless Licensing's patent. The Board found no basis to overturn the prior institution denials.
Detailed Summary
In a rehearing order dated October 15, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied Samsung Electronics' petitions for Director Review of the institution decisions in four interrelated inter partes review proceedings (IPR2025-00526 through IPR2025-00529) that challenge Keyless Licensing LLC's patent 11,503,144 B2 covering keyless entry technology. After reviewing the petitions and the parties' responses, the Board concluded that the requests did not satisfy the statutory criteria for Director Review and ordered that all such requests be denied, leaving the prior institution denials in place.
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 Keyless Licensing LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect's request for Director Review of institution decisions in several IPRs, including the case involving Align Technology's orthodontic aligner patent 11,648,090.
Quotient Technology, LLC et al.vsIntelligent Clearing Network Inc. et al.
Quotient Technology and Inmar Brand Solutions filed a joint request to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related regulations, asking the PTAB to restrict public access.
Perfect CorporationvsZugara, Inc.
Perfect Corp. and Zugara, Inc. settled their IPR dispute over patent 10,482,517. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement agreement confidential.
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s U.S. Patent 12,156,669 covering an endovascular clot‑removal system. The petition asserts anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, including Garrison, Goff, Brady, Pons, Schaffer, and Hartley. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
Samsung Electronics petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Maxell’s ’091 set‑top‑box patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition lists six grounds covering all claims and cites expert testimony to bolster its position.
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.