Executive Summary
Wilus seeks director review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of Samsung’s IPR on Wi‑Fi patents, arguing settled expectations and inconsistent indefiniteness positions.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Apple Inc. vs HBCU Messaging US LP is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Verizon Wireless filed an IPR petition challenging 40 claims of a network service plan provisioning system, asserting obviousness over prior art references Poh, Maes, and Burnett. The challenge centers on whether combining these existing technologies would motivate the claimed dynamic policy updates in wireless networks.
VIZIO, Inc.vsMultimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.
VIZIO, Inc. successfully petitioned the PTAB to institute an IPR against Multimedia Technologies Pte. Ltd.'s patent (9578384) covering Video On Demand user interfaces. The Board granted institution based on sufficient evidence of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
Element TV Company, LP et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Element TV and Nokia have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,050,321 and jointly moved to terminate the pending inter partes review before it was instituted.
TikTok Inc. et al.vsNTECH Properties, Inc.
TikTok has filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent 8,145,704, asserting that prior art references Whitehead, Cristofalo and Marcus ’904 make all 24 claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition also argues that the Board should not exercise discretionary denial.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al.vsCarma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’138 ride‑sharing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over existing transport‑sharing systems disclosed in Olmi, Gaspard, Thomas and Wolfe.
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.