Executive Summary
Maxell seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute Samsung’s IPR against U.S. Patent 11,017,815, alleging abuse of discretion on public‑accessibility findings, prior‑art status, and burden‑shifting. The petition also raises policy concerns over multiple petitions on the same patent.
Related Cases
Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. et al.vsHowmet Aerospace Inc.
Stanley Black & Decker has filed an IPR petition challenging Howmet Aerospace’s ’358 blind fastener patent, asserting that all 20 claims are obvious over prior art such as Corbett, Kleinman, and Brewer. The petition outlines four §103 grounds and seeks institution of the trial.
MediaTek Inc. et al.vsMOSAID Technologies Inc.:
MediaTek and MOSAID settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 7,945,885, leading to the joint termination of four inter partes review proceedings. The Board granted confidentiality treatment for the settlement agreement while denying its separation from the IPR files.
Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied institution for Aylo Freesites Ltd et al.'s IPR against DISH Technologies L.L.C., citing failure to meet diligence requirements. The Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in searching for primary prior art, leading to a discretionary denial under General Plastic factors.
Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Samsung’s petition to invalidate Headwater Research’s 9,271,184 patent on obviousness grounds was denied. The Board concluded the prior art did not teach the specific blocking step required by the claims, failing the reasonable‑likelihood test.
Amgen Inc. et al.vsBristol-Myers Squibb Company
Amgen seeks Director review of a denied institution for IPR2025‑00602, arguing that Bristol‑Myers Squibb’s Opdivo® flat‑dose patent is obvious and was improperly shielded by a discretionary denial based on settled expectations.
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.