Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Headwater Research LLC

IPR2024-00341

Headwater Research LLC seeks Director review of an IPR decision that found all claims of its 2013 MMS messaging patent unpatentable. The patent owner contends the Board improperly relied on expert testimony because the cited prior art (TS-23.140) does not disclose the required agent communication bus. The request asks the Director to vacate the decision and terminate the IPR.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00341
Filing Date
23 January 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00611

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.vsEVONIK OPERATIONS GMBH et al.

Air Products challenges EVONIK's membrane separation patent (10471380) on grounds of obviousness. The petitioner argues that the claimed system configurations are predictable combinations of teachings from prior art references like Ungerank and Scholz.

patentIPR2025-00699

Amphenol CorporationvsCredo Technology Group Ltd.

Amphenol has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Credo’s ’111 patent covering chip‑to‑module pre‑equalization techniques. The petition relies on obviousness over Lugthart‑706, Das Sharma, and Mezer, and argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted.

patentIPR2025-00544

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC

The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in eight related IPRs against Mobile Data Technologies. The order contains no substantive patentability findings.

patentIPR2025-01386

Volex plcvsCREDO TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD.

Volex PLC and Credo Technology Group settled their IPR disputes covering three patents, including U.S. Patent 11,012,252, and jointly moved to terminate the proceedings. The Board granted the termination and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.

patentIPR2025-00795

Intel CorporationvsAdvanced Cluster Systems, Inc.

NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,140,612 B2, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review after it had been instituted.

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