Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. SiOnyx, LLC

IPR2024-01431

Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 54 claims of SiOnyx’s ’737 image‑sensor patent, asserting anticipation or obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and urging the Board not to deny institution.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-01431
Filing Date
24 September 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00877

Google LLCvsCellular South Inc

The PTAB denied Google’s request to rehear its challenge to Cellular South’s facial‑recognition patent, finding no abuse of discretion. The Board held that the petitioner failed to raise a proper claim‑construction issue and that its new arguments were untimely and overly broad.

patentIPR2025-00512

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsKoninklijke KPN N.V.

Samsung Electronics and Dutch telecom firm KPN have reached a confidential settlement, jointly moving to terminate the pending IPR on U.S. Patent 8,881,235. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).

patentIPR2025-00109

Jumio CorporationvsFaceTec, Inc.

Jumio Corporation successfully petitioned to institute IPR against FaceTec, Inc.'s facial recognition patent (11874910), establishing a reasonable likelihood of obviousness. The Board found that prior art combinations, particularly Derakhshani and Tanii, teach the claimed limitations in biometric authentication systems.

patentIPR2025-00478

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al.vsConcurrent Ventures, LLC et al.

Patent owners seek rehearing to overturn the PTAB's denial of discretionary denial, arguing that a June 2026 trial in the parallel district court precedes the PTAB's final decision deadline, invoking Fintiv factors. They reference a prior Director decision in a related IPR that denied institution under similar circumstances.

patentIPR2025-00658

Microsoft Corporation et al.vsDialect, LLC

Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging eight claims of Dialect’s 8,195,468 patent covering multimodal voice‑assistant technology, asserting obviousness over the Maes, Coffman, and Ittycheriah references. The petition argues the examiner never considered these references, creating a material error, and urges the Board to institute review.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call