SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v. iCashe, Inc.

IPR2025-00640

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00640
Decision Date
3 November 2025
Filing Date
3 November 2025

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 Samsung requests that the Decision be withdrawn and the matter be referred to a panel for reconsideration.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.

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