Short Summary
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 39 claims of Mullen Industries' smartwatch patent, arguing obviousness over five pre‑AIA smartwatch references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2024-01472), Samsung Electronics and its U.S. affiliate request the PTAB to institute a review of claims 1‑39 of U.S. Patent No. 11,190,633, owned by Mullen Industries. The challenger contends that the claims are obvious in view of a combination of prior‑art references—including Narayanaswami, Fujisawa, Kita’514, Kita’039, and Cannon—none of which were considered during prosecution. Five distinct grounds are presented, each covering overlapping subsets of the claims. Samsung also argues that the Board should not invoke discretionary denial under §§325(d) or 314(a). The petition cites prior settlements in related Apple litigation and emphasizes its timely filing and diligence. No institution decision has been made yet.
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 Mullen Industries LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsSitNet, LLC
The PTAB denied the institution of IPR2026-00101 against SitNet's patent 12245325. The denial was based on Meta Platforms failing to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al.vsMedline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard and Medline Industries jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent record for U.S. Patent 11,684,347 covering urinary catheters.
UiPath, Inc.vsRule 14 LLC
UiPath has filed an IPR petition challenging all 21 claims of the ‘977 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a wide range of prior‑art references covering query generation, term expansion, and data‑source monitoring. The petition also argues that the claim terms are limited to human‑generated queries and a relevance‑based accuracy threshold.
Dentsply Sirona Inc.vsOsseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition for inter partes review of Osseo Imaging’s ‘262 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The petitioner relies on three grounds—Massie, Arai, and Pelc—to argue that claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are anticipated or obvious.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology petitions to invalidate 17 claims of Stratasys' 3D‑printer patent, arguing that a combination of prior‑art references makes the claims obvious. The petition also challenges a discretionary denial under §§325(d) and 314(a).
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.