Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Hannibal IP LLC

IPR2025-01189

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01189
Filing Date
7 November 2025
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentPGR2026-00030

Hyundai Motor America, Inc.vsGerm Dome Industries LLC

Hyundai Motor America has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Germ Dome’s UV sanitizing patent, alleging anticipation by a 2003 Japanese patent and obviousness over that reference alone and in combination with a later U.S. application. The petition relies on extensive claim‑by‑claim comparisons to prior art.

patentIPR2024-01378

Avation Medical, Inc.vsEMKinetics, Inc.

EMKinetics seeks Director review of a PTAB decision that found ten claims of its medical‑device patent unpatentable. The owner contends the Board relied on unsupported presumptions of printed publication and admitted untimely rebuttal evidence, violating procedural rules.

patentIPR2025-00998

Google LLCvsAdvanced Coding Technologies LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging all ten claims of U.S. Patent 8,090,025, asserting obviousness over a combination of prior‑art video‑coding references. The petition seeks institution based on General Plastic and Fintiv factors.

patentIPR2024-00982

TransCore, LP et al.vsHand Held Products, Inc.

TransCore and Hand Held Products entered a confidential settlement and jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-00982 before the Board issued an institution decision.

patentIPR2024-00911

Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.

Micron Technology successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Yangtze Memory Technologies regarding claims related to 3D NAND memory technology. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claim 10 based on Toyama's First Exemplary Structure, moving the case toward trial preparation.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call