Short Summary
Samsung has filed a petition for Director rehearing, challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for iCashe’s NFC payment patent. The petition alleges procedural violations of the APA and due‑process rights, and argues the Board ignored Samsung’s Sotera stipulation and misapplied settled‑expectations factors.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00640, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. seek Director rehearing of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of iCashe, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 9,483,722 covering NFC mobile‑payment technology. The petition contends that the USPTO’s rescission of the Vidal Memo and the issuance of the Boalick and Stewart memoranda were substantive rule changes made without required notice‑and‑comment rulemaking, violating the Administrative Procedure Act and Samsung’s due‑process rights. It further argues that the Board failed to consider Samsung’s timely‑filed Sotera stipulation, which should have precluded a discretionary denial based on parallel district‑court litigation, and that the Board’s reliance on “settled expectations” is factually unsupported, constituting an abuse of discretion. Samsung requests that the Decision be withdrawn and the matter be referred to a panel for reconsideration.
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 iCashe, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Niantic, Inc.vsImagineAR, Inc. et al.
Niantic has filed an IPR petition challenging all 28 claims of ImagineAR’s U.S. Patent 11,484,797, asserting obviousness over the Kolo and Zyda publications.
Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC
Google LLC initiated an IPR against Sandpiper CDN, LLC's patent (10924573) covering Content Delivery Networks. The Board instituted the case, finding a reasonable likelihood that Google could prevail under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on obviousness over prior art combinations.
Intersect ENT, Inc. et al.vsNew Amsterdam, LLC
Intersect ENT and New Amsterdam, LLC have entered a settlement that resolves all disputes over U.S. Patent 6,916,483. They jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, citing the settlement and lack of further contest.
Senko Advanced Components, Inc. et al.vsUS Conec Ltd.
Senko Advanced Components argues that Conec’s narrow claim constructions for its fiber‑optic adapter patent conflict with its own ITC testimony, urging the PTAB to institute the IPR.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
TSMC seeks PTAB reversal of a Director’s discretionary denial, arguing that national‑security, settled expectations, and examiner errors justify instituting an IPR against patent 7,923,764.
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.