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
Anker Innovations LimitedvsPowermat Technologies Ltd.
Powermat Technologies Ltd. has filed a preliminary response to Anker Innovations’ IPR petition on U.S. Patent 9,048,696, arguing that the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that the cited prior art was already considered during prosecution. The owner seeks a denial of institution under § 325(d).
Nokia of America Corp.vsADAPTIVE SPECTRUM AND SIGNAL ALIGNMENT, INC.
Nokia and Adaptive Spectrum and Signal Alignment, Inc. have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 7,593,458 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to treat the settlement agreement as business‑confidential.
Ascend Elements, Inc.vsDuesenfeld GmbH
Ascend Elements has filed a PGR petition seeking cancellation of Duesenfeld’s battery‑recycling patent. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and indefiniteness of key claim language.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsMarlin Semiconductor Limited et al.
TSMC has filed an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor’s U.S. Pat. 7,288,822, asserting that all fourteen claims are unpatentable. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue obviousness and anticipation under §§ 102 and 103.
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsPalisade Technologies, LLP
Micron filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its IPR of U.S. Pat. No. 8,996,838 before the Board decided on institution, arguing that the proceeding was at an early stage and dismissal would conserve resources. The Board is expected to grant the motion, terminating the review.
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.