Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v. Maxell, Ltd.

IPR2025-01314

Maxell opposes Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 8,180,198, arguing the prior art does not disclose the claimed playlist and dubbing features and that the petitioner’s expert testimony is merely argumentative.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01314
Filing Date
29 August 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00471

EP Family Corp.vsOffice Kick Inc.

EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 concerning patent 11,849,843. The parties indicate they have settled, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.

patentPGR2024-00042

Catalyst OrthoScience Inc.vsShoulder Innovations, Inc.

Catalyst OrthoScience seeks a PTAB post‑grant review of Shoulder Innovations' reverse shoulder implant patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of the term “central channel.” The petition also asserts that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patentIPR2025-00492

Nokia of America Corp.vsADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.

Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum reached a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate the IPR before trial. The settlement agreement was ordered to be kept confidential under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c).

patentIPR2025-01434

Tempus AI, Inc.vsGuardant Health Inc.

Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Guardant Health’s U.S. Patent 10,287,631 covering duplex consensus sequencing, arguing that all 23 claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and Travers publications.

patentIPR2025-00158

ResMed Corp.vsCleveland Medical Devices, Inc.

ResMed Corp. has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Cleveland Medical Devices' U.S. Patent 11,690,512 covering a wearable sleep diagnostic system. The petition argues that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Ciulla, Orbach, and others) under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

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