Executive Summary
SK hynix has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent 8,400,835, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior Japanese patents Murakami and Kobayashi, and U.S. patent Yu. The petition seeks to invalidate claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEmpire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024‑00896. Samsung has five business days to submit a limited response, with no new evidence allowed.
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.vsSkyworks Solutions, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied the petition for review of its decision not to institute an IPR against Skyworks' patent, leaving the institution denial in place.
Charter Communications, Inc.vsIarnach Technologies Limited
Charter Communications challenges Iarnach Technologies' 9,287,982 patent covering DOCSIS‑based EPON provisioning. The patent owner argues the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of invalidity and invokes Fintiv factors to seek a discretionary denial of institution.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsStaton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung Electronics, Harman International and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR over patent 11,659,315 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Tableau Software, LLC et al.vsiCharts LLC
Tableau Software has filed a request for Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s denial of institution of an IPR against its interactive‑chart patent. The petition contends the Board erred on claim constructions, the disclosure of a second website, and motivation to combine prior art references.
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.