Short Summary
Samsung’s IPR against Chien‑Min Sung’s 9,724,802 patent was decided with claims 1‑9 and 12‑21 found unpatentable. The patent owner now petitions the Director to overturn the Board’s findings, arguing errors in the designated‑profile analysis, ignored expert testimony, and improper priority treatment of Sung ’146.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024‑00535, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that claims 1‑9 and 12‑21 of U.S. Patent No. 9,724,802 are unpatentable, relying on two conflicting “designated profile” theories and treating the Sung ’146 application as anticipatory prior art without a proper limitation‑by‑limitation analysis. Samsung Austin Semiconductor and its affiliates, the petitioners, contend that the Board’s adoption of both a flat‑profile and an average‑height construct violates the intrinsic record and lacks substantial evidence, especially given unrebutted testimony from Dr. Tsai that the referenced Tsai paper does not disclose a pre‑designated profile. Additionally, the Board’s priority ruling improperly forfeits earlier filing dates for the ’802 patent. The patent owner, represented by Alex Chan, seeks Director review and reversal of the final written decision.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC et al. vs Sung, Chien-Min is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Imperative Care, Inc.vsInari Medical, Inc. et al.
Imperative Care has filed an IPR petition challenging Inari Medical’s ’910 clot‑removal patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsVB Assets, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of VB Assets’ voice‑dialog patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over two pre‑2006 publications. The petition also argues that a discretionary denial is improper.
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al.vsU.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy filed an opening Petition to challenge U.S. Patent No. 11,091,992, asserting that its claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner relies on multiple combinations of prior art references within the hydraulic fracturing and well control systems field.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies settled their disputes, leading to the joint termination of sixteen IPRs covering laser‑beam‑steering patents. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
USAA Federal Savings BankvsPACid Technologies, LLC
USAA Federal Savings Bank petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against PACid Technologies' 2018 patent covering biometric user authentication, asserting that all 21 claims are obvious over prior art. The petition details extensive claim‑by‑claim analyses and argues that institutional factors strongly favor proceeding.
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.