Short Summary
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition challenging KIWI’s RE50,307 USB socket patent, asserting that all 93 claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Andre, Lufan, Yuming, Lee, Yen, Zhenyu and USB 3.0. The petition seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent RE50,307, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. contend that the patent’s 93 challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petition identifies seven grounds of obviousness, each combining one or more prior‑art references—Andre (U.S. Pat. 7,094,089), Lufan (CN 201113094Y), Yuming (CN 201204344Y), Lee (U.S. Pat. 6,854,984), Yen (U.S. Pat. 7,231,473), Zhenyu (CN 201038524Y) and the USB 3.0 specification—to show that the claimed socket structure, its reversible insertion, simultaneous dual‑side electrical connection, and functional reverse‑mirror contact arrangement were fully disclosed before the ’307 patent’s priority date. The petition argues the Board erred in granting the patent and requests that all claims be cancelled. The case is pending institution 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 KIWI Intellectual Assets Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SAVANT TECHNOLOGIES LLC d/b/a GE LIGHTING et al.vsFeit Electric Company, Inc.
Feit Electric’s request to extend the Director Review deadline in two IPRs was denied as untimely, despite arguments about a recent policy change and foreign ownership concerns.
Trove Brands, LLCvsCamelBak Products, LLC
Trove Brands has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of CamelBak’s 11,684,187 patent covering drink containers with removable caps. The petition relies on prior art from Kiyota, Choi, Park, and Ribarits to argue obviousness and asserts a means‑plus‑function construction for the “user release mechanism.”
BOE Technology Group Co., LTDvsOptronic Sciences, LLC
BOE Technology Group opposes Optronic Sciences' request for Director Review, asserting that Beijing Electronics Holdings is not a real party in interest and that the patent owner delayed raising RPI issues. The Board’s prior rulings supporting BOE’s RPI identification are reaffirmed, and the Director Review request is urged to be denied.
Bizlink Technology, Inc., et al.vsAnder Power Products, Inc.
Anderson Power Products seeks director review to overturn the Board’s institution and final written decision that found several claims of its arc‑suppressing connector patent unpatentable over Winkler. The owner argues the petition lacked particularity and the Board’s claim construction of “within” was erroneous.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Samsung and Google have filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of a second IPR covering all 30 claims of Headwater’s ’733 patent. They argue the denial was improper and that the Patent Owner’s stipulation fails to protect their products from future litigation.
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.