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
Wealth, Inc.vs--
Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.
Microsoft CorporationvsQomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Microsoft CorporationvsToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGOLDEN EYE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 13‑15 of Golden Eye Technologies' 9,717,037 patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over earlier Wi‑Fi standards and patents (Choudhary, Hasty, Chen). The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGolden Eye Technologies LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 9‑11 of Golden Eye’s ’556 Wi‑Fi scanning patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three earlier patents. The petition emphasizes that the patent was allowed despite acknowledging the same prior‑art concepts.
Pinterest, Inc.vs--
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of OpenTV’s ’703 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Orr, Hsu, Lim, and Hervey.
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.