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
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Samsung’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision on Netlist’s memory‑module patent was denied, leaving the Board’s final written decision intact.
fuboTV Media Inc.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The PTAB denied fuboTV's request for rehearing of its IPR decision on patent 11,677,798. The Board held that the petitioner failed to show any misapprehension of prior‑art mappings or erroneous claim construction, leaving the earlier mixed result unchanged.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
Samsung and Micron petitioned for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision in Netlist’s DRAM patent (U.S. 7,619,912). The Director recused, and Deputy Under Secretary Derrick Brent denied the request, leaving the PTAB’s final written decision intact.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
PacifiCorp and its affiliates have petitioned the PTAB to invalidate U.S. Patent 10,926,218, which covers mercury removal from coal‑fired power plant flue gas. The petition alleges anticipation and obviousness over several prior‑art references and argues lack of written‑description support for key claim limitations. The Board has yet to decide whether to institute the IPR.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. et al.vsOAK IP LLC
GlobalFoundries and OAK IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01129 following a settlement that resolves all disputes over the ’880 patent and related proceedings.
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.