Short Summary
Samsung Electronics seeks Director Review of a PTAB institution decision for a deep‑trench isolation patent, arguing the Board mis‑applied Fintiv discretionary‑denial factors. The patent owner contends the panel gave insufficient weight to the upcoming district‑court trial date and related investment.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2024‑01403, Samsung Electronics and its affiliates petitioned for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute review of all claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,673 covering deep‑trench isolation technology. The patent owner argues that the Board abused its discretion by down‑weighting the proximity of a parallel district‑court trial scheduled for January 5, 2026, and by mis‑evaluating the investment and Sotera stipulation factors under the Fintiv framework. Citing recent USPTO memoranda and case law, the owner requests the Director remand the matter with instructions to deny institution. The filing includes detailed arguments on procedural errors but contains no claim‑construction or prior‑art analysis, as it is a procedural petition rather than a final decision.
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 Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon and Nokia filed a joint motion to terminate their IPR after it had been instituted, and the Board granted termination while keeping the settlement documents confidential.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology successfully instituted PGR against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding a patent on 3D memory structures. The Board found that the petitioner sufficiently demonstrated obviousness over prior art references Kim and Lee for multiple claims. This moves the dispute into trial phase, raising significant stakes in semiconductor technology licensing.
Coretronic CorporationvsMaxell, LTD.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Coretronic’s IPR petition on its projection‑type image display patent. The owner contends the petitioners lack a reasonable likelihood of success because the cited references do not disclose or make obvious the claimed moveable mounting base. The Board is asked to reject the petition.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based advertising patent resulted in five of the nine challenged claims being found unpatentable, while the remaining four claims were upheld.
Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Sandpiper CDN’s CDN patent, arguing anticipation by Newton-471 and obviousness over Dilley, Pai, and Wang. The petition stresses favorable institution factors and argues against discretionary denial.
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.