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
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEmpire Technology Development LLC
Samsung has filed a preliminary reply opposing Empire Technology’s narrow claim construction of “idle power consumption” in U.S. Patent 8,798,120. The argument centers on the patent’s disclosure of leakage‑current power draw during sleep mode, which Samsung says renders the proposed construction unsupported.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon successfully challenged Nokia's patent claims in an IPR proceeding regarding video coding and motion prediction technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of obviousness over prior art, leading to institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Mobile Data Technologies’ patents, leaving the institution denials in place.
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ decoding patent. The petition alleges procedural violations, APA breaches, and improper reliance on rescinded guidance.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron's request for Director Review of PTAB decisions in two Netlist IPRs, leaving the Board's rulings final.
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.