Short Summary
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Harbor Island Dynamic’s ’886 SOI switching circuit patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over Okashita, Yu, and Burgener. The petition argues that the Board should institute review and that denial is not warranted under Fintiv and §325(d).
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2024-01402, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. request inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,745,886, which claims a semiconductor switching circuit built on a silicon‑on‑insulator (SOI) platform. The petitioner asserts that claims 1‑19 are either anticipated by the Okashita patent or obvious in view of the combined teachings of Okashita, Yu, and Burgener, none of which were considered during prosecution. Detailed grounds cite §§102 and 103, and the petition emphasizes that institutional factors favor review while arguing that denial is not justified under the Fintiv interim guidelines and 35 U.S.C. §325(d). No claim constructions are required, and the petition includes expert testimony from Dr. Scott Thompson. The proceeding is currently at the petition stage, with Samsung seeking institution and cancellation of the 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 Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Wealth, Inc.vs--
Wealth, Inc. has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Vanilla Technologies’ U.S. Patent 12,353,917, alleging ineligibility, obviousness, indefiniteness, and an improper dependent claim. The petition relies on prior‑art references Racanelli, Bateman, Dintenfass, McMillen and Kwak.
Microsoft CorporationvsQomplx LLC
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging 16 claims of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,301,627 covering graph‑based network anomaly detection. The challenger asserts obviousness over prior‑art references Stokes, Crabtree, and Sekar under 35 U.S.C. §103.
Microsoft CorporationvsToutVirtual, Inc.
Microsoft has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of ToutVirtual’s ‘667 patent covering virtual system management, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGOLDEN EYE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑3 and 13‑15 of Golden Eye Technologies' 9,717,037 patent. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over earlier Wi‑Fi standards and patents (Choudhary, Hasty, Chen). The petition requests the Board to institute the review and cancel the challenged claims.
Cisco Systems, Inc.vsGolden Eye Technologies LLC
Cisco has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate claims 1‑4 and 9‑11 of Golden Eye’s ’556 Wi‑Fi scanning patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three earlier patents. The petition emphasizes that the patent was allowed despite acknowledging the same prior‑art concepts.
Pinterest, Inc.vs--
Pinterest has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of OpenTV’s ’703 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Orr, Hsu, Lim, and Hervey.
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.