Short Summary
Samsung Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Hannibal IP’s ’911 patent covering PDCCH monitoring and DRX power‑saving techniques. The petition relies on Nimbalker and several 3GPP documents as prior art under §§102 and 103.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-01189, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. petition the PTAB to institute inter‑partes review of U.S. Patent No. 11,368,911 (‘911 patent), which claims methods and devices for monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) and managing discontinuous reception (DRX) power‑saving signals. The petition asserts that the claims are anticipated or obvious in view of the Nimbalker disclosure alone or combined with other prior‑art references (R1‑1905031, R1‑1903016, and Anil), invoking 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103. Detailed motivations, expectations of success, and claim‑by‑claim analyses are provided, and the petition requests that the Board institute the IPR and cancel all 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 Hannibal IP LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Godbersen-Smith Construction Company d/b/a GOMACO CorporationvsGuntert & Zimmerman Const. Div., Inc.
Guntert & Zimmerman seeks Director Review to overturn the PTAB’s institution of a post‑grant review of claims 1‑7 of U.S. Patent 11,772,723, arguing the patent is pre‑AIA and that collateral estoppel bars the petitioner’s arguments. The request centers on three legal questions about estoppel, preclusive effect, and amendment‑induced AIA status.
Koki Holdings America Ltd. et al.vsKyocera Senco Industrial Tools, Inc.
Koki Holdings and Kyocera Senco have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,845,167 and jointly moved to terminate IPR2025-00264. The motion cites public‑policy reasons and the fact that the Board has not yet decided the merits.
Cytek Biosciences, Inc.vsBeckman Coulter, Inc. et al.
Cytek Biosciences has filed a PGR petition challenging Beckman Coulter’s flow‑cytometer patent, arguing lack of written description, enablement, and obviousness over several prior‑art references.
Google LLC et al.vsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
Google has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Headwater Research’s U.S. Patent 9,609,544, seeking cancellation of all 23 claims on the basis that they are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103. The petition relies on a combination of prior‑art references covering network policy and power‑management techniques.
Apple Inc.vsCardWare Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging CardWare’s ’538 patent covering mobile payment tokenization. The petition asserts that claims 19‑30 are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
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.