Short Summary
Empire Technology Development LLC seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that claims 25‑28 of its 8,798,120 patent are unpatentable. The owner argues the Board misapplied the district court’s claim construction and relied on unsupported prior art. Samsung Electronics is the challenger.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024-00896, Empire Technology Development LLC (patent owner) has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s Final Decision that found claims 25‑28 of U.S. Patent No. 8,798,120 unpatentable. The owner contends that the Board erred by ignoring the district court’s construction of “idle power consumption,” by treating powered‑off transceivers as “waiting to send,” and by basing its obviousness analysis on the Li‑Siam combination and Cui‑2003, which do not disclose the claimed idle power‑based control signal. The petition argues these errors constitute an abuse of discretion warranting reversal. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are the petitioners seeking to uphold the Board’s invalidity findings.
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 Empire Technology Development LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
LG Electronics Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have reached a settlement and jointly filed a motion to treat the settlement agreement as business confidential information, seeking to terminate IPR2025-00394 concerning patent 10,199,072.
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO CorporationvsGuntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
The PTAB held that all 20 claims of GOMACO’s ‘749 slipform paver patent are unpatentable, finding the petitioner’s obviousness arguments over the CIII manual and Rio actuator convincing.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsXtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
AMD and Pensando have filed an IPR petition challenging XtreamEdge’s ’753 patent covering blade‑server packet identifiers and memory arrangements, arguing the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsXtreamEdge, Inc. et al.
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Pensando Systems successfully convinced the PTAB that XtreamEdge's network testing claims are likely obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board issued an institution decision, moving the dispute toward trial on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior art references.
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google’s petition for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ video‑coding patent was met with a detailed response from the patent owner asserting the denial was proper and that the APA challenges lack merit.
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.