Short Summary
Samsung has filed a petition for inter partes review of U.S. Patent 11,621,360, asserting that the claims covering microstructured photodetectors are obvious over prior art such as Kuboi, Shinohara, and Yu. The petitioner seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025‑00994, Samsung Electronics and its affiliates request that the PTAB institute an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,621,360, which claims a photodetector device with micro‑structured pillars, solid‑dielectric sidewalls, and monolithic integration of the image sensor with circuitry. Samsung contends that the asserted claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 because the same structural features and dimensional ranges were disclosed in the prior‑art references Kuboi (U.S. Patent Application 2012/0049044), Shinohara (U.S. Patent Application 2012/0033119), and Yu (U.S. Patent Application 2012/0153124). The petition details how a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these teachings, resulting in obviousness for claims 1,3,5‑6,8‑9. The filing includes a declaration from Dr. Michael Lebby and a comprehensive list of exhibits supporting the obviousness argument. Samsung asks the Board to institute the proceeding and cancel 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 W&Wsens Devices Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOura Health Oy et al.
The PTAB denied Samsung's Post-Grant Review petition against Ouraing because the patent owner had statutorily disclaimed all 16 challenged claims.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy
Amazon has filed a petition for rehearing, asking the Director to vacate the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Nokia’s video‑coding patent covering bi‑prediction. Nokia argues the Board erred under § 325(d) by revisiting arguments already considered during prosecution.
Innoscience America, Inc. et al.vsInfineon Technologies Austria AG
Innoscience America challenges Infineon's patent on power semiconductor packaging, asserting obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner argues that combining known device structures with established packaging techniques renders the claimed features predictable to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOura Health Oy et al.
Samsung has filed a PGR petition seeking to invalidate Oura’s wearable‑ring patent (US 11,868,178) on grounds of obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and §112 indefiniteness.
US Conec Ltd.vsSenko Advanced Components, Inc.
US Conec Ltd. and Senko Advanced Components have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,307,369. They jointly request the settlement be kept confidential and move to terminate the IPR.
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.