Short Summary
Maxell’s preliminary response urges the PTAB to deny Samsung’s IPR petition, arguing the prior art does not teach the dual‑camera standby features and that discretionary factors favor denial.
Detailed Summary
In its preliminary response to Samsung’s petition for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,223,757, Maxell contends that the four obviousness grounds raised by the petitioner are unsupported because the cited references—Chinn, Takahashi, EX‑V7, Kim, Yamamoto, and Thorn—do not disclose the claimed camera‑standby timing and control elements. Maxell further argues that discretionary denial factors under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) weigh heavily against institution, citing the lack of a Sotera stipulation, the imminent district‑court trial, and substantial investment in parallel litigation. Accordingly, Maxell requests that the Board deny institution of the petition.
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 Maxell, Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amazon.com Services LLC et al.vsSmart Speaker LLC
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging Smart Speaker’s ’721 smart‑home patent, asserting that all asserted claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art references.
Dentsply Sirona Inc.vsOsseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The challenger asserts the claims are anticipated or obvious over Arai and Pelc references, especially when combined with Cann and Rothman teachings. The petition seeks a finding that claims 1‑8 and 10‑20 are unpatentable.
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google LLC filed a Request for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’303 patent. The petitioner alleges procedural errors, APA violations, and improper reliance on discretionary factors. Google seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the trial.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
MidAmerican Energy and BirchTech have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 10,933,370. The parties jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing settlement and lack of a merits decision. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the IPR.
USAA Federal Savings BankvsPACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank and PACid Technologies settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,070,530, leading to a joint motion that terminated the IPR proceeding before it was instituted.
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.