Short Summary
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging AQ Corporation’s ’011 patent covering a smartphone antenna module. The petition seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6 on obviousness grounds, citing three prior‑art combinations. No claim construction or Board decision is included in this filing.
Detailed Summary
In this Inter Partes Review petition, Samsung Electronics and Samsung Electronics America request the PTAB to institute a review of AQ Corporation’s U.S. Patent No. 11,303,011, which claims a smartphone antenna module with dual‑sided coil patterns for NFC, MST, and wireless power charging. The challenger contends that claims 1‑6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103, presenting three distinct grounds: (1) Seong combined with Kang and Cho; (2) Ahn combined with 721Lee; and (3) 005Lee combined with Seong and Cho. Detailed motivation‑to‑combine arguments and extensive prior‑art citations are provided, but no claim construction or secondary considerations are asserted. The petition is filed with lead counsel Robert A. Appleby of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
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 AQ Corporation is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc. et al.vsColumbia Insurance Company et al.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in PGR2024‑00050, finding claims 5 and 17 indefinite and lacking written description, and deeming claims 1‑12, 15‑17, and 21‑23 obvious over Gilb ’792 and Bundy. The Board granted a partial amendment for claim 32 while denying other proposed substitute claims.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
WEC Energy Group and Birchtech Corp. have settled their IPR dispute and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al.vsMedline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard and Medline filed a joint PTAB motion to keep their settlement agreement confidential under §317(b). The request seeks to separate the agreement from the patent file and limit its disclosure to federal agencies only.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
Webgroup Czech Republic and NKL Associates have filed a petition for inter partes review of DISH Technologies' adaptive streaming patent, asserting obviousness over the Leaning and Gamble references under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Shenzhen Root Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsWillow Innovations, Inc. et al.
Court decision.
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.