Charter Communications, Inc. v. Iarnach Technologies Limited

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.

The USPTO denied Samsung's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in three IPRs involving Maxell patents, including patent 8,982,086. The denial leaves the PTAB's original rulings unchanged.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsVasu Holdings, LLC

Vasu Holdings opposes Samsung's Director Review Request, asserting the request raises new, unauthorized arguments and that Samsung lacks due‑process and APA grounds. The patent owner contends the Board’s actions complied with existing USPTO guidance.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.

Apple’s IPR petition challenges Omni MedSci’s ’484 wearable health‑monitoring patent, asserting that all 23 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution and a finding of unpatentability.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.

Maxell filed a sur‑reply opposing Samsung’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,812,646, asserting that the petition is vague, lacks claim constructions, and misstates the patent owner’s position on the “sleep state.” The patent owner urges the Board to deny institution.

BOE Technology Group Co., LTDvsOptronic Sciences LLC

Optronic Sciences requests Director Review of an IPR against its patent, arguing that BOE’s state‑linked controller Beijing Electronics Holdings was not disclosed as a real party in interest. The patent owner cites recent Director decisions that tighten RPI requirements and seeks vacatur of the Board’s decision and termination of the IPR.