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
Western Digital Technologies, Inc. et al.vsGodo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
Western Digital has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all six claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,608,198, asserting that the MRAM‑related claims are obvious over prior‑art references such as Bowen, Nagahama, Sunai and Soukup. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is unwarranted given the ongoing district‑court litigation.
Capital One, National Associationvs--
Capital One filed an unopposed motion to terminate IPR 2024-00878 and to keep the settlement with Implicit, LLC confidential under statutory authority. The Board is asked to treat the settlement as business confidential information and end the proceeding.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLCvsHalozyme, Inc. et al.
Merck’s petition challenges Halozyme’s claims to modified PH20 polypeptides, arguing lack of written description and enablement. The reply reinforces these arguments with case law and scientific exhibits.
Cargill, IncorporatedvsBunge Loders Croklaan USA, LLC
Cargill has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Bunge’s 7,645,473 patent covering vegetable‑fat blends, arguing the claims are obvious over a 1998 Petrauskaite publication and other prior art. The petition details extensive calculations to show the claimed ranges are disclosed or predictable. The Board must decide whether to institute the trial.
Curio Bioscience et al.vsPrognosys Biosciences Inc. et al.
Curio Bioscience has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of the ‘022 patent covering spatially encoded biological assays, arguing obviousness over Cantor and Armani and anticipation by Frisen.
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.