Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Headwater Research LLC

IPR2024-01407

The PTAB denied the request to institute Inter Partes Review (IPR) regarding patent 9179359 between Samsung and Headwater Research.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01407
Filing Date
9 June 2024
Outcome
denied

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 Headwater Research LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00943

Google LLC et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that numerous claims of the patent were unpatentable. The Board found successful anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and obviousness under § 103, primarily using prior art reference Rao.

patentIPR2024-00791

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYANGTZE MEMORY TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY, LTD.

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision denying the Petitioner's challenge to four claims related to 3D memory devices. The Board found that the Petitioner failed to establish obviousness over prior art references, specifically Toyama.

patentIPR2024-01031

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsStaton Techiya, LLC et al.

Samsung Electronics filed a Petition challenging Patent No. 11659315 on grounds of obviousness (§ 103) related to active noise reduction and audio assistant devices. The petition asserts that various combinations of prior art references render multiple claims invalid.

patentIPR2024-00668

Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsAmerican GNC Corporation

The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 1 and 4 unpatentable over prior art combinations, specifically citing Smith/Chan/Bernstein and Tingleff/Chan/Bernstein. The Board maintained its construction that the 'micro inertial measurement unit' limitation requires MEMS implementation.

patentIPR2025-00749

ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLCvsFacet Technology Corp.

Mobileye Global successfully convinced the PTAB that several claims of Facet Technology's patent were obvious in light of prior art references Gallagher and Schofield. The Board found Claims 1-4, 8-13 unpatentable based on a combination of these references, while upholding the validity of other claims (5-7, 14-16).

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call