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
BOE Technology Group Co., LTDvsOptronic Sciences LLC
The PTAB denied Optronic Sciences’ request to revisit the institution of six inter partes reviews filed by BOE Technology Group. The Board found no extraordinary circumstances and held that the deadline for additional briefing had passed.
Amgen Inc. et al.vsBristol-Myers Squibb Company
The PTAB notified Amgen and Bristol‑Myers Squibb that Director Review requests have been filed for IPR2025‑00601 and IPR2025‑00602, setting a five‑day deadline for a limited response and prohibiting new evidence.
Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC
Google seeks Director Review of the USPTO’s denial to institute an IPR against Advanced Coding Technologies’ ’448 patent, alleging statutory and procedural violations. The petition highlights failures to meet hearing requirements, to provide a merits determination, and to follow APA rules.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al.vsOMNI MEDSCI, INC.
Apple (as petitioner) prevailed in IPR2020‑00175, with the PTAB finding all challenged claims of the ’299 wearable physiological‑monitoring patent unpatentable as obvious over Lisogurski, Carlson, Mannheimer and Park references.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Stratasys' 3D‑printer configuration patent (US 11,886,774), asserting obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and arguing against discretionary denial.
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.