Short Summary
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of One‑E‑Way’s wireless audio patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and a broken priority chain.
Detailed Summary
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. petitioned the PTAB for inter‑partes review of claims 1‑20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047, owned by One‑E‑Way, Inc. The challenger contends that the claims are obvious in view of the ’196‑Publication and a combination of Walley, Miyake, Gibson, Rappaport and Drakoulis references, and argues that the patent’s earliest valid filing date is July 12 2008 due to a break in the disclosure chain caused by a 2003 continuation‑in‑part. Samsung seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of all challenged claims.
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 One-E-Way, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Solus Advanced Materials Co., Ltd. et al.vsSK nexilis Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied Solus Advanced Materials' request for rehearing, upholding the initial decision to deny institution of IPR against SK nexilis regarding surface roughness claims. The Board found insufficient evidence of motivation to combine prior art references.
Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.vsNingde Amperex Technology Ltd.
The Patent Owner seeks Director review to overturn the Board’s decision instituting an IPR against its battery‑electrolyte patent. It contends that the Petition forfeited challenges to claims 20‑26 and that ten of the raised grounds are fatally flawed, making institution an inefficient use of resources.
Apple Inc.vsVampire Labs, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of Vampire Labs' battery‑charging patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over prior art (Stephens, Horowitz, and Toya) and that discretionary denial is unwarranted. The petition seeks institution of the proceeding and cancellation of the claims.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd.vsShenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Shenzhou Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Microsoft Corp.vsVirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under 35 U.S.C. §317(b). They argue the agreement contains highly sensitive business information that could harm their interests if disclosed.
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.